Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/Archive 41

Inquiries and reports update needed
The current article only lists four reports when there are anywhere from 6-8 at this point. I would like to see a table listing the linked reports by date, institution, and result in the first section. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Quickly?
The phrasing in the lede implies that the timing of the mainstream media's coverage of climategate was influenced by Copenhagen. That may be the case, but I haven't seen any sources which claim that. You've provided a couple sources which indicate the timing of the original release may have been due to Copenhagen. If you don't want "quickly" in the lede, and do want to connect to the release to Copenhagen, please give actual dates for the blogosphere release, the mainstream news media coverage, and Copenhagen. You are creating disparaging implications without a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, we don't use adverbs like "quickly" in encyclopedia articles, and our MOS and related guidelines all discourage such use because they are easy to abuse. I am unclear as to why we keep discussing what you think the wording implies in every discussion thread. For some reason that I do not understand, your reading of this and other passages is the opposite of what it and the sources say.  It is the widely published opinion of commentators  that the Copenhagen Summit was influenced by the timing of the climategate coverage.  You appear to have read it backwards.  If I am missing something, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Shortened and cleaned-up lede
I've removed the conspiracy claims again, as this is opinion presented as fact, which is against policy -- as I and other editors have pointed out upthread. Also these claims appear to go beyond the present article.

I removed this recent addition:


 * ...the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged, with both NASA and NOAA reporting that the 2010 temperature record was one of the warmest years on record to date.

The assertion re consensus seems poorly-worded, and the 2010 bit seems unnecessary. Please discuss before re-adding.

I struck "The original, unauthorised release of CRU documents on the Internet along with the widely published but unproven accusations in the popular media..." and shortened this to "The Climategate affair..." This clause has been criticized previously as redundant and unecessarily repetitious.

I made a few other copyedits for flow and brevity.

Some comments: Editor Viriditas has documented many media claims of conspiracy, but these must be clearly presented as opinion, not fact. And the article should first incorporate these claims before they are added to the lede. Great care must be taken with this contentious material, to strictly observe NPOV.

Similar comments apply to Copenhagen. There are media speculations along these lines. Our article currently has one, a quote from Michael Mann. Flesh out the article first, then summarize.

The lede revision in general seems to be getting some distance ahead of what our article actually says. I suggest (as did Dave Souza) incorporating this proposed new material into the article first, so as not to get the cart before the horse. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the lead as getting ahead of the article. Besides, hasn't this already been discussed at some length? ScottyBerg (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been discussed. What I find strange is that Tillman never responded to the discussion but has continued to revert, claiming it is POV.  When asked why it is POV, he never responds, but keeps claiming it is POV, over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theories" is specifically stated by the sources, such as the Nature article. We seem to be going round and round and round again on this, and have been since long before I knew this article even existed. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, you continue to present opinion as fact, which is against policy. From WP:NPOV:


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. [emphasis added]


 * Here is your wording:


 * Soon after, global warming conspiracy claims arose in the blogosphere, with climate sceptics alleging that scientists had manipulated and suppressed climate data.


 * I don't believe you've ever replied to this objection. How is this not editorial opinion presented as fact? --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Pete, I think the point of disagreement is that it's a fact, not an editorial opinion. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scotty, if you look through the long list above, at Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (sorry, no internal link), all that I see are editorials and op-eds. Am I missing something? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tillman, you obviously didn't read the discussion. Most of the sources are neither editorials nor opinion pieces. Those particular type of sources were offered in addition to reliable secondary sources to show that primary, secondary, and tertiary sources all refer to the allegations as a conspiracy.  I don't think you actually looked at the sources, Tillman.  Editorials and opinion pieces have little to nothing to do with this. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tillman, your assertion that the scientific consensus content is poorly worded is ridiculous. How is it poorly worded? You won't answer because you are just objecting because you don't like it, and that's not a valid rationale for deletion.  The material you object to is the key response to this manufactured controversy. The science was not impacted, the investigations found the data was solid, and global warming continued in the midst of this denial.  This is reported in the majority of sources about climategate and you have no justification to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You claim that you have presented reliable secondary sources. Please separate the reliable sources from the OpEds and other unreliable sources, so that unbiased editors can see whether your proposed additions are actually supported by reliable sources.  I, for one, am not going to spend time reading your "sources", when the majority (of those that I've checked, chosen either at random or the first few in a section) are not reliable or do not support your proposed changes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, the sources have been separated twice above, and in a third response, I named the most important secondary sources. If you are not going to spend time reading the discussion, then you have no business reverting or opposing changes. I have explained this three times.  I do not need to explain it a fourth time. I will, of course, respond to specific questions, but when you show up here day after day saying that you don't know the topic and won't bother reading the discussion, it gets to a point where I have to ask, why are you here? Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point to the list that you claim consists of reliable secondary sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the thread called "reliable sources" above. I provided those sources not three times as I thought, but four. And for each of those sources there are a dozen more like it.  That RS have been offered is not in dispute. What you are saying is that you don't like it.  That's not good enough, Arthur.  We've already discussed this Arthur, and you refused to answer my questions about why you are challenging the sources.  Please stop pretending the sources have not been presented. Four times is enough.  If you want to ask questions about the sources, feel free. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In each of the lists, the majority of sources I looked at were either not reliable or did not support your thesis. For the Copenhagen list containing 6 entries, 2 were unreadable in this browser, and only one of the remaining 4 was a reliable source which supported your thesis.  And, that source contradicts another item you wanted in the lede.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, you appear to be looking at a different article. In this article, I have provided reliable primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.  That you would come here and actually claim that "the majority of sources were unreliable or did not support the claims" is unbelievable and cannot be taken seriously.  I have provide more than enough RS that directly support the material, and as I have repeatedly informed you, there are many more where they came from.  You have not shown that any are "unreliable" (nor do you appear to understand how to evaluate a source for reliability).  Additionally, you have not shown how any do not support the sources.  What you have done, and what you continue to do, is play a little game, where you come here, revert, avoid answering questions about your revert on the talk page, claim you don't have time to read the discusison or look at the sources, repeatedly claim the sources aren't reliable when you haven't even looked at them, etc.  It's a fun little game for you, I'm sure, but it needs to stop now.  If you think a source is not reliable or does not support a claim, you are required to demonstrate it. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see we are looking at sources for different things. For conspiracies, I accept that the some sources support conspiracy theory, and few (if any) contradict it.  I do not believe that we can support global warming conspiracy theory, as that requires a WP:SYNTHESIS between what the reliable sources say and what we define global warming conspiracy theory as. I think that something constructive can be said, but I'm sure your formulation is not supportable under Wikipedia policies, and I'm no longer sure mine is supportable, so I think it's better left out until a sourced formulation is produced. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It requires no such synthesis at all, and all of the conspiracy theories discussed by the sources are discussing global warming conspiracy theory, as this has been pointed out to you again and again and again and again. If you think or feel they are talking about some other conspiracy theory, then you need to demonstrate your challenge with sources.  This has been repeatedly brought to your attention, again and again, with no reply from you, only your repeated claim of "I do not believe" based on your own personal belief system.  That is not how we edit Wikipedia, Arthur.  When sources like Newsweek report that skeptics believed that the hacked CRU e-mails "establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy" and that climategate "will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy" there is no ambiguity.  Your argument that this description of global warming as a scientific conspiracy, specifically referred to as a "global-warming conspiracy" by Newsweek, is a completely different thing than global warming conspiracy cannot be taken seriously by any rational person, and can only be described as disruptive.  This has been extensively discussed  with no response from your or anyone else providing a single source that challenges this assessment.  The above discussion threads show that you have simply refused to answer any questions about your edits (for example the questions asked at 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC), which you ignored), preferring to simply revert over and over again for no reason.  That this is in the page history and that there are diffs showing your refusal to answer simple questions about your edits can be provided when the time comes.  Repeatedly reverting without answering questions about your reverts is not acceptable.  You have failed to address the questions asked of your last revert, and you have failed to answer the questions about your current revert, which is the same as your last revert. When we have chemist Neil Winterton of the University of Liverpool describing the allegations as a conspiracy in his textbook, when we have Tom Hollihan, professor of communication at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism calling it a conspiracy, when we have environmental scientist Hadyn Washington classifying it as a conspiracy and explaining the argument in detail in his book, when we have sociologist Ted Goertzel calling it a conspiracy in an academic source, when we have news sources, not editorials or opinion pieces, like Nature, Newsweek and Information World Review calling it a conspiracy, when we have official sources like the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change publishing a report and calling the claims a conspiracy, then we have reliable sources supporting our wording.  Again, which reliable sources dispute this wording, Arthur?  Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Viriditas. We've had some major differences in the past, so this is not a kneejerk reaction. I just simply don't see the problem here. Besides, my recollection is that the lead has been extensively discussed in the past. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead has been extensively discussed in the past, and the version prior to V's first changes was generally accepted. Some elements of V's changes remain (without a clear consensus), and some elements which were there have been removed, probably because I, at least, don't remember the stable version.  Alex and Pete may be acting against that consensus, but so has V.
 * Alex points out (on my talk page), that allegations of a conspiracy do not necessarily make a "conspiracy theory", and he further reports that only one of V's sources uses the term "conspiracy theory". I'm not fully convinced by his argument, but I am no longer convinced that conspiracy theory, itself, is sourced, to the point that I will not restore it if it is removed.  "Global warming conspiracy theory" requires more references, preferrably a single 3rd-party source noting the elements we use to define the term.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We can certainly tweak the language, but I must tell you that "allegations of a conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are distinct without being materially different. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all extensively sourced. I would like to see Arthur or anyone else challenge a single word I've added.  I've asked them to do so, repeatedly, with nothing but "I don't like it" and "It's POV".  One cannot have a discussion with that type of response.  "Global warming conspiracy theory" has plenty of references on this talk page and it's not in question by anyone except Wikipedia editors pushing a fringe theory that was discredited by more than 6 investigations. Viriditas (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, as our own article on the subject makes clear, conspiracy theory is not a neutral description. So there is a world of difference between an allegation of a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theory. There are two points: (1) V has provided only a single source that uses the actual phrase 'conspiracy theory', and I am not sure at all that an IT source is a reliable source for climate science history (Information World Review). (2) even if we agree that V has one source that calls something a 'conspiracy theory', we still can't use that wording, because it is not neutral. It must, therefore, be attributed. (3) I have shown above that while no sources that refer to the allegations contradict that the allegations were of a conspiracy (and I think we are all agreed that this is a factual statement), the vast majority do not refer to a 'conspiracy' at all. They simply say that allegations were made that scientists manipulated or suppressed data, and this is why I changed the wording to say the same. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Alex, you appear to have a common misunderstanding about neutrality policy, it does not require giving "equal validity" to fringe or minority views, the sources are clear that there have been allegations of conspiracy which have been shown to be unfounded, an issue well covered in the global warming conspiracy theory article. Thanks go to Viriditas for finding extensive good quality sourcing on this aspect of the issue, my hope is that this can now be used to clarify the body of the article. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed at the patience that V and others have shown here. Numerous first-rate sources have been found and quoted, over and over again and the same couple of editors continue to repeat that they can't find the references. Why doesn't somebody who thinks the sources say something different quote the different thing, with a verifiable citation. Viriditas has quoted extensively from Nature, Newsweek, Information World Review, textbooks etc., but as he says, people say they looked at 'something' and it didn't support a statement, without saying what they looked at. That's not a debate! Even worse to say there's too many for me to read, or my browser doesn't work properly. C'mon guys. Agreed we need more of these new sources expanded on in the article body too, but that is difficult to get on with while also engaging a continual non-debate here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in a response from ScottyBerg. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? ScottyBerg has already said, '"allegations of a conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are distinct without being materially different'. Surely you don't need someone to tell you again that in his edit of 23:25, 10 May 2011, Viriditas gave about 20 references to prominent skeptics talking about, and mainstream media picking up on, "a scientific conspiracy", "The CRU's Criminal Conspiracy", "a global conspiracy", an "immense conspiracy theory", the "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth" and on and on. If the CRU e-mails had proven that a worldwide network of scientists, working with key people from the UN IPCC, had altered and fabricated data, and manipulated the scientific peer-review process, so as to have us all believe that there was global warming going on when there wasn't, that would have been one of the greatest hoaxes or conspiracies of all time exposed. But it wasn't. Six or eight independent enquiries have said that none of those things were happening. So the conspiracy possibility, hypothesis, theory, suggestion, whatever, was busted. Why do you need ScottyBerg? Please, just let us get on. --Nigelj (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am hoping that Scotty, or even someone else, will answer the actual point I made, rather than addressing things I didn't say. For example, I didn't say that 'an "allegation of a conspiracy" is "materially different" from a "conspiracy theory"'. What I said is that one is a pejorative, and therefore banned by the NPOV policy. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that it? I don't see 'conspiracy theory' in the article, other than in quotes ('An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories"' and 'David Reay of the University of Edinburgh said [...] "The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day"') and linked in the lede (' sparked global warming conspiracy claims in the blogosphere '). There is no doubt from the sources that it was widely reported that there were allegations of a conspiracy that was very widespread indeed. You're saying that there is a policy that says that we can't quote people who have been quoted in mainstream publications using a pejorative term? Or that we can't link to articles about pejorative terms? Please link to that policy section here so that we can get to the bottom of this. --Nigelj (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, on this particular point, yes, that's it. If we can remove the link to 'conspiracy theory' and have it point instead to conspiracy, we can move onto the next objection. Unfortunately, I have a list of about 10 objections to Viriditas's lead. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The Newsweek source fully supports it, as do dozens of other sources on this page that I would be happy to add. Even historian Spencer R. Weart, of the American Institute of Physics, calls it a conspiracy.  This is not in dispute by any source, Alex, and I've asked you to provide reliable sources showing that it is.  You have refused.   BTW, even though the scientists were cleared by nine separate investigations and the science remains as strong as ever, conservative activist groups as recently as last week continue to claim that "the ClimateGate scandal exposed the dishonesty and manipulation of data by key scientists who are among the leading proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)".  Do you agree with that statement, Alex? Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Four tags
I see there are no fewer than four full-size banners at the head of this article, stating that it is under construction, not neutral, irrelevant and inaccurate. Yet it's been here for nearly two years, and only the lead has changed recently. Surely this is unnecessary? The whole article cannot suddenly have become so bad as to need a whole page of banners on a smaller screen, and several screenfuls of them on a mobile device. Can we remove most of them, please, so that we don't make Wikipedia look like a school project? --Nigelj (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought it down to two tags. The MI template doesn't handle under construction or content templates, and neither of those was needed. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

proposal
To other editors out there who can see that this article is horribly biased, and who also see that progress is impossible with the various personalities involved here in the talk pages, I have a proposal: Let's rewrite the article in user space in accordance with Wikipedia policies and genuine consensus based editing, and when we're finished, we bring it back here with an RfC to see if we can replace this mess with our neutral version. If we succeed, Wikipedia wins; if we fail, we still get to have some fun. Thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Two cents from an outside observer - I'm not sure how this would work, and rewriting the article entirely and then attempting to replace the current version with the rewritten one actually seems like a way to avoid consensus rather than garner it. To my mind, the "various personalities" seem to have presented substantive challenges and questions that should be answered rather than circumvented.  And even if the article is redone in user space, what's to prevent the same impasses from arising once it comes back with an RfC?  Just a couple thoughts.  Sindinero (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is presently not based on consensus. There is never going to be any consensus while editors considered to be even vaguely unorthodox are repeatedly smeared as 'fringe theorists' and 'conspiracy theorists'. I have answered the apparent 'substantive' challenges repeatedly. Just go to Google News and type in 'climategate "conspiracy theory"'. You may be surprised, or not, to find that you get 0 hits. Why? Because newspapers are bound by editorial policies to use neutral language, and "conspiracy theory" is not neutral language. Experiment further. Try "global warming conspiracy theory". Again, not a single hit. Why? Because there is no such thing. Relax your search criteria to just "conspiracy theory", and you'll get 1,150 hits. (Not many.) Dig deeper, and they're nearly all opinion pieces. Anyhow, I think my proposal is a good idea. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Matthew 7:5. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexh, can I refer you once again to Viriditas' edit of 23:25, 10 May 2011: Viriditas presented about 20 references to prominent skeptics talking about, and mainstream media and publications picking up on, "a scientific conspiracy", "The CRU's Criminal Conspiracy", "a global conspiracy", an "immense conspiracy theory", the "conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth", "Climategate reveal[s] a conspiracy", "a conspiracy to misrepresent the data", "a conspiracy to hide evidence", the e-mails and documents will "provide conspiracy theorists with lots of fare for a long time to come", "human-made climate change as a conspiracy", "climatologists colluded in manipulating data", "climate change is a conspiracy by environmentalists and politicians", "an unconscious conspiracy by a group of scientists", "a conspiracy to manipulate research", "an alleged conspiracy involving leading climate scientists", "a conspiracy to manipulate the data", "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy", "a conspiracy to ‘hide the decline’ of global temperatures"... I note your response at the time was, "V, I'm not going to read these walls of text", so I've shortened the quotes. I don't think there's any need to start again with Google search stats. --Nigelj (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Alex, Arthur, and others keep coming back here claiming that the article is "horribly biased".  I have repeatedly asked them to show me this bias so I can correct it.  They have repeatedly refused to do so.  Coming here and saying "biased, biased, biased" without showing how is not acceptable.  I have repeatedly asked for help with certain sections of this article, with Alex flat out refusing to participate.  Now, Alex keeps claiming that I have only offered "opinion pieces" for the classification of this allegation as a conspiracy theory.  He has been repeatedly informed that the opinion pieces were offered only in addition to reliable secondary sources, to show parity between the primary, secondary, and tertiary. He has also been repeatedly pointed to reliable secondary news stories classifying these allegations as a conspiracy from day one.  Yet, we're told that "they're nearly all opinion pieces".  Stranger still, is that Alex admits refusing to read the list of sources in the above section.  Instead, he keeps doing a personal search of Google.  Does Alex understand that the majority of reliable sources refer to these allegations as a conspiracy, and have always done so, and that this classification is not in dispute or contested by any RS?  Could Alex please explain his objection to the term conspiracy or conspiracy theory here? Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I won't, as I have done so, repeatedly, above. Until you respond to the actual points I have made, I am not going to say anything further. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation for edits to lede, continuing NPOV problems
I removed the "More than six" committees claim, as it appears to be unsupported by the article, and note that this is still a confusing sentence: what exactly does "Six independent committees" mean? If there really are more than six, let's count them, give a definite number, and add them to the article. I note with disapproval that there remains no mention in the lede of the numerous criticisms of these investigations -- some of which are cited already in the article.

Also removed a duplicate mention of the Copenhagen conference.

I've tagged the "global warming conspiracy" for cite(s) -- this claim appears unsupported in the article, and the language doesn't appear to be neutral.

Tagged the SciAm news/opinion article as inappropriate: this early (Jan 2010) article, from a magazine notorious for pro-AGW bias, is unsuitable. Substitute an investigation report?

I removed the claim for "attacks against climate scientists" as confusing, as it suggests physical attacks. Also no discussion and no consensus that this item belongs in the lede.

Removed "smear campaign" : inserted with no discussion, no quote in cited sources and no consensus to include.

"Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists." This is apparentlybased on a CJR article, at least that's all in the article. Reword to cite that, but I don't think there's consensus to put it in the lede.

I remain concerned that the only mention of possible FOIA legal violations by CRU remains a passing comment re "lack of transparency". --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your changes as unhelpful and unjustified. Practically all of your claims are specious and cannot be taken seriously; e.g, "notorious for pro-AGW bias" -- presumably you would make the identical claim of the U.S. National Academies of Science. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boris, this is a borderline WP:NPA. You're usually more level-headed than this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The top of my head is as planar as always. And you have just broken 1RR on the article, since parts of your first edit removed changes made recently by others, and then you reverted me. But I won't report it -- this time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boris, I struck the SciAm comment that you objected to, although it's a widely-held opinion -- and a personal disappointment to me, a long-term former subscriber.


 * This was your only specific objection, other than "Practically all of your claims are specious and cannot be taken seriously..."-- which looks an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. It's discourteous (at best) to revert another's major edit -- which consisted of removal or flagging of contested and contentious recent additions -- with such a cursory note, closing with a personal slur. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tillman, your edits and reasons for making them are not supported. Everything is cited to the finest sources. Your comments reveal you are pushing an extreme fringe theory that even the most public deniers gave up on years ago. You do realize, I hope, that the skeptics have finally admitted that AGW is occurring, and that their argument boils down to 1) what do we do about it, and 2) how severe will the temperature change be? I say this because you appear to be making pre-IPCC arguments.  It is 2011, Tillman, and it is time to update your paradigm.  I realize that many geologists went to their graves refusing to believe in continental drift,  and that Einstein had trouble accepting quantum mechanics, but AGW has had a solid consensus for 15 years now. Tillman, you are in clear violation of FRINGE and undue.  That the allegations against CRU are founded on a conspiracy theory is supported by the sources and is not in doubt.  That the scientists were threatened and attacked in the media and in their personal lives is supported by the sources and not in doubt.   That the Copenhagen wording was appropriate and relevant is not in doubt.   That the Scientific American article represents the mainstream sources on this subject and is appropriate to the topic is not in doubt.  That the attacks on CRU before Copenhagen were described as a smear campaign by scientists, policy makers, and even PR firms, is not in doubt.  That the claims about media coverage were made by many sources, not just CJR, and is fully supported is not in doubt.   That we don't mention "possible violations" or suggest illegal acts occurred when they did not, is policy, and your concern is unjustified.  However, the sources do support the wording referring to the breach as a "hack" and to unauthorized release of documents as "data theft".  Several commentators have described this hacking and unauthorized release as an illegal act. Tillman, your edits completely ignore the sources and the discussion about them.  I will therefore be restoring the previous version. Viriditas (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas: just what part of WP:No Personal Attacks do you not understand? This is an extraordinary outburst, that I'll be copying to a private file. Pete Tillman (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Warmist", anyone? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2010 climate
Why is the 2010 climate relevant, even to the scientific consensus? If any one year weren't one of the warmest years (because, say, of a volcano eruption or other single event affecting world-wide temperatures), it wouldn't affect the scientific consensus or any rational opinion. Why should one year (after Climategate) being one of the warmest years be considered to support the scientific consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were relevant in the body of the article, there's no reason for it to be in the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it's a response to the contrarian refrain of 1998 being the warmest year, with cooling since then. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible. But if the (1998) claim isn't in the lede, why should the refutation?  And I still don't think it's very relevant to the article or subject, only to (some) climate sceptics' viewpoint of the subject.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the volcano I mentioned was in 1999, significantly reducing the average temperature in 1999 and 2000, but, still.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what volcano would that be? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the 2010 temp statement as irrelevant, per the discussion above. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nine?
We only had 6 last week, and one of those only reviewed the results of the other reviews. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I no longer see inaccuracies in the lede, if that "nine" were sourced. As I added disputed, I would have no objection to its removal from the header.  However, Alex and Pete may differ.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing three major independent reviews, and am refraining from editing the lede to show that only because some editors are presently out of the loop. However, I am soliciting feedback from any editor who Nuclear Warfare did not ask to take a break.
 * These are the three that the University of East Anglia acknowledges:
 * Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee (March 2010)
 * Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel (April 2010)
 * Muir Russell Review (July 2010)
 * Why would we add to that?
 * The Penn State inquiry was only about Dr. Mann.
 * I may be mistaken on this, but I believe the AP report (Borenstein, Satter and Ritter) was simply journalism; it is highly critical of the scientists' attitudes and evasive actions. Yopienso (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what we have so far:


 * Feb 24, 2011: CBC News lists five investigations. "All the reports have cleared the climate scientists of wrongdoing, but have been accused by critics of being incomplete or biased."

Point of Order
Editors Viriditas, Alex Harvey & myself have been requested to take two weks off from editing this article:. So the page should be quieter for awhile. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will (voluntarily) take time away from the article as well. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AR4 deletes?
Hi, I don't edit Wikipedia ever so I'm a bit new to this, but why isn't the request to delete emails regarding AR4 in this Wikipedia entry? It's being linked to GlacierGate on various climate skeptic sites since Hasnain has basically said the IPCC based their data on a media report and not his actual work. Additionally, he stated: "And you know the might of the IPCC.". Has the IPCC commented specifically on this?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html http://www.climategate.com/glaciologist-syed-hasnain-i-was-keeping-quiet-as-i-was-working-here -- 04:58, 18 May 2011 173.29.214.111


 * Sorry, I don't understand your question. What request to delete what emails? Neither of the sources you linked to say anything about emails, and the latter one appears to be just a random blog, not a reliable source. Guettarda (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a reference to Criticism of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, an issue with no evident connection to the CRU emails other than the publicity occurring at about the same time. . . dave souza, talk 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Hasnain actually a typo of James Hansen? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Syed Hasnain, Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI), is no relative to James. Read the crit article linked above. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected a minor error in timeline
I've corrected a minor error: our article cites this Guardian article for this statement:


 * The climate-sceptic blog Watts Up With That, which had obtained a copy of the files, also received a posting from the hacker complaining that nothing was happening. Its moderator Steve Mosher replied: "A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow." Shortly afterwards, the emails began to be widely publicised on climate-sceptic blogs and subsequently in the media.

However, Mosher wasn't a moderator, and the article doesn't specify where the complaint was posted:


 * Mosher says he also received a posting direct from the secret leaker, complaining that nothing was happening. He replied, he says: "A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being co-ordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow."

I've also shortened the quote, which seemed overlong. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this up, sorta right: Mosher was the moderator's flatmate, according to the source. I've clarified that and restored the whole quote, at the very least "Much is being coordinated among major players and the media" is significant, though how much of it was Mosher's imagining is open to question. The sequence indicated in the source doesn't match our article, will review that. . . dave souza, talk 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarify to "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists."
Clarify to "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists." 99.119.128.251 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why a quotebox from a PR man?
Our Media reception section presently has a quotebox with a long quote from a PR man for the Burson-Marsteller Public Relations Agency. I question whether a PR man's opinion meets WP:Weight requirements. Am I missing something here? The source is a mid-2010 article here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to address your concerns, in more or less the order that you originally raised them:
 * ~74 words is not considered a "long quote". I prefer sidebar quotes to be somewhere on the order of between 40-80 words.  I agree that more than 80 words can appear long, but such quotes are usually moved from a quote box to a block quote when they occur.
 * The quote is from Bill Royce, EMEA Practice Leader Energy, Environment & Climate Change. Royce is Burson-Marsteller's global account leader for Royal Dutch Shell.
 * The quote is verifiably attributed to a reliable source, swissinfo, a Swiss public broadcasting organisation SRG SSR.
 * Royce's opinion is highly relevant to this topic, as the Climatic Research Unit was initially founded in 1971 with help from Royal Dutch Shell and other companies. The quotation from Royce represents an expert PR opinion on the "climategate" public relations disaster and neatly encapsulates and reflects sources already in the article.  Royce's comment about the media campaign reflects Winter (2009), Feldman (2009), and Fimrite (2009), and is also shared by Mann, Somerville, Karoly, Pitman, and many others already in the article.  Royce's statement about the lack of proportionality in coverage also summarizes opinions already established on this topic, from Newsweek (2020), The New York Times (2010), The Columbia Journalism Review to Howard Kurtz and others.
 * In conclusion, there is nothing "undue" about this quote at all. Upon closer examination, the quote has been shown to properly represent and summarize the mainstream sources, and the source is considered an expert on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an expert opinion, properly sourced, but no evidence has been provided that it represents mainstream sources, and it's in the wrong section. It's excessive for the section, and, unlike almost all the other paragraphs in the section, it fails to note that the scientists were at fault or incompetent at dealing with the PR issue.  It's an example of mainstream media response, perhaps. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've provided the evidence up above your comment, with the timestamp of 00:32, 6 June 2011. I'm a bit confused how you can say "no evidence has been provided that it represents mainstream sources" right after I've provided that evidence.  It's not excessive and it properly summarizes the main points of the section where it is used.  It does not "fail" to note that the scientists were at fault or incompetent, because that is not the subject of the material at hand.  A quote cannot fail to summarize something it does not say—that's just a nonsensical objection.  An "example" of a mainstream media response is about the only thing we are interested in on Wikipedia.  Anything else is either fringe or undue. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's almost representative of the first paragraph of the section; perhaps it should be summarized and added there. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Arthur Rubin: Taking up your suggestion, I've summarised the info with reduced quotations, and added it to the first paragraph where it relates directly to points made by others. I've also made clear his position in what the news report calls a "communications firm". . . dave souza, talk 20:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have already shown, it is representative of the first and last paragraph and sources throughout the article (Winter 2009, Feldman 2009, and Fimrite 2009, Mann, Somerville, Karoly, Pitman, etc.) The rest of the section is composed of minority editorials by the Boston Herald and Wall Street Journal, both of which offer climate denial arguments that are out of step with mainstream science and the results of multiple investigations. The Boston Herald's statement that the scientists were "given a not-quite-full exoneration ... echoes of the uproar still prompt needed skepticism" is not only undue, but is meaningless. What exactly does "echoes of the uproar still prompt needed skepticism" mean, and why is it even in this encyclopedia article?  The WSJ's editorial comment questions the consensus of the scientific consensus, in another meaningless rhetorical statement that is simply a restatement of climate change denial.  Both of those have no business even being in this article. Yet, you and Tillman remove a quote from Bill Royce, whose every word is repeated throughout this article in mainstream sources? Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't shown anything here. I think the paragraph you deleted is as appropriate to the section as the parts kept; furthermore, even if your arguments were correct, and the quote were appropriate and representative of the section, it would now be excessive for the section, as the quotebox would extend beyond the edge of the section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I showed everything above the comment where you said I showed nothing. Please explain to me how the paragraph I deleted is appropriate.  Use your words to persuade me.  Your claim that the quotebox would now extend beyond the edge of the section due to my recent deletion has got to be the strangest claim I have ever seen on Wikipedia.  Thank you for keeping me always interested in what you have to say.  Don't let anyone ever tell you that you are predictable. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not saying you've shown anything, but now that you've deleted content irrelevant to the quote, making the quote more relevant to the section, it would extend beyond the section, making it visually excessive, even if it weren't otherwise an excessive quote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also note that WP:UNDUE suggests that we should include minority opinions (such as editorials) in proportion to their weight. Both editorials are representative of significant minority views, and probably should be included.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't revert your deletion, per 1RR, but you've clearly violated 1RR here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, can you please show me how and where I violated 1RR? I'm asking, because you have me really confused.  I have not made more than one revert, nor have I reversed the edits of another editor twice today.  Deleting content is not a revert, Arthur. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleting content is a revert for the purpose of 3RR, but it may not be for the purpose of 1RR. Common sense needs to be used, as uncommon as that may be on Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I don't recall whether this particular 1RR is per day per article or per section, I'm not sure of further details. It's not per editor or per actual edit reverted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just self-reverted a possible 1RR vio -- thanks, Arthur, for the note. I think you might be confused (above) re some of the details -- Kim, are you hear? You always seem to know the rulebook. I'm easily confused about 1RR (among other things...)

I'll note in passing that the current conflict came after my inquiry note re the PR man quote sat unanswered for 4 days -- which I took as reasonable evidence that removing it would be non-controversial. Huh.

As for V's removal of impeccably-sourced, stable text -- wow. Sure looks like Battlefield mentality again, to me. Sigh. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a difficulty in that it's easy to find editorials promoting tiny minority scientific views, and putting them in as examples is pushing original research without a reliable secondary source identifying them as significant minority views. We could of course go searching for more examples supporting majority scientific views to balance these, but then this could easily bloat the section. I'm sure both V and Pete are acting in good faith, albeit with different ideas of the ideal balance, but there is an underlying problem with including quotations promoting fringe views. Perhaps at most we should have something on the lines of "July 2010 editorials in the Boston Herald and Wall Street Journal gave support to skeptical views, with the latter criticising the inquiries for supporting the scientific consensus." The quote from Clive Crook at The Atlantic also seems excessive, his views as clearly associated with Lomborg rather than mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to determine a consensus of mainstream opinion, as Dave notes. It should be noted, however, that Dave is incorrect in terms of "editiorials promoting tiny minority scientific views" only the WSJ editorial discussed scientific views, and media review of scientific views may not be relevant to the section.  We do not know, unless a reliable tertiary source comments on the reliable secondary sources, what the weight of media opinion is.  (There is no doubt as to the weight of scientific opinion, and public opinion is more easily measured.)  I don't really see an alternative to including all editorials from reliable sources, or none, which would not result in edit warring.
 * I'm afraid that opinions contrary to fact need to be noted as such, though. The Muir Russell report, itself,  notes that it is not thorough.  Commentary to that effect, since it is available, needs to be added to counter The Economist report, regardless of the relative weight of opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave: Well, this is our Media Reception section, so what we should have (imo) is a representative selection of, well, media reactions. So your objections to the WSJ and Clive Crook quotes are a bit beside the point. We did have a stable selection here, hammered out to consensus at great cost and effort, as you may recall. Viriditas chose to add a quotebox (implying extra significance) from a non-notable PR man. Which I think fails WP:Weight, and anyway isn't a media reaction -- so it's out of place even if we decide to keep it. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, no. We should ideally have expert opinion on media coverage commenting on the media reactions, with those experts choosing representative examples. If we try to balance them ourselves, we have to be careful to avoid giving a false impression of undue weight to fringe science positions, though of course it's legitimate to note that parts of the media are promoting such scientific minority views, and promoting undue doubt about the scientific consensus. Royce clearly has a senior position in Burson-Marsteller and expertise in publicity, so we no more require him to be personally notable (which he may be) than we require an unnamed editor of the WSJ to be personally notable. Your insinuations that he's just a p-r man can readily be matched by well supported concerns that the WSJ merely promotes pro-big business interests favouring opposition and doubt about consensus science. Both probably have their place provided care is taken over context and weight. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave said, "We should ideally have expert opinion on media coverage commenting on the media reactions..." I agree that sounds good, but I don't think I've ever seen a CC article where that's been done. Do you have a pointer to one?


 * Regardless, I see no evidence that Bill Royce is such an expert. Professionally he's a "hired gun", and his profession isn't held in high regard on this side of the pond. Additionally, if you look at the lead para, we now have the New York Times, Newsweek, and..... Bill Royce, a non-notable PR man, quoted at an obscure website for   Swiss public broadcasting. Thud. And, the Swiss article gives no particular prominence to the quote V. wants to use. So, it still appears to fail WP:WEIGHT.


 * V., I have no particular objection to these general sentiments being used. You say they are widespread. Why don't you find someone more prominent to quote? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tillman,we did not choose Bill Royce as an expert. Swiss public broadcasting organisation Swissinfo (SRG SSR) did.  According to them Royce is an expert, and he not only works on environment and climate change issues, he's also the account leader for Royal Dutch Shell who was involved in the founding of the CRU.  Royce's comments are quoted in the context of his expertise on public relations and media relations, which is what the section is about.  What you think about Royce, Tillman, is irrelevant, and repeatedly appealing to an argument from authority isn't how we do things. We already have a secondary source indicating importance and relevance.  We cannot say the same, however, for your inclusion of the Boston Herald and Wall Street Journal editorial, which has little to nothing to do with the subject of media reception.  The problem here, is you are confusing the topic of media reception with reception by the media, a common misunderstanding.  Read carefully and you will see that these sources are commenting about the media reception, not giving examples of reception by the media as you seem to believe.  Perhaps you should read the section again in its current form.  Additionally, you have not answered my questions about this material.  What the Boston Herald thinks about the exoneration of scientists and what the WSJ thinks about the Muir Report has nothing to do with the topic of media reception. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing stable text agreed to by consensus

 * V., please look in the Talk archives for the long, hard-fought history of how these particular quotes were selected. Your contention that the WSJ and Boston Herald pieces don't count as media reception is, well, novel. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We generally don't select quotes based on anonymous editorials without some indication of importance as a baseline. I've previously asked you (above) why these two are important, and you have not yet answered.  Please do not point me to older discussions.  You are the one who added it back after it was removed (a revert) and therefore, you have the burden of proof.  If you added the material, surely you must think it is important?  Convince me. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent]I think you just violated WP:1RR here in this revert. Please self-revert, and please read the archives first before removing stable text. This was all fought out long before your time here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tillman, you appear to be confused. You just violated the 1RR with three separate reverts for June 8, 2011. I will therefore be reporting you immediately. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, I'm seeing no discussion whatsoever of your reverts on this talk page. Where can I find it? Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * V: at the head of this page you will find this policy Notice:
 * Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.


 * You should already know this policy. Please research the archives before you try to change a previously-arrived-at consensus. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tillman, you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked you about your edits here, and you haven't responded to my request for you to explain your reverts, which is what you're supposed to do on the talk page. I'm not required to explain your reverts, you are. If you feel that something is controversial, you need to raise it as an issue.  There's no need for me to research the archives, and your request that I do so appears to be bizarre. You, on the other hand, need to explain your inclusion of disputed material and your reverts. 03:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Tillman had two reverts 22:57, June 7 and 00:58, June 8. The earlier one was a revert and self-revert, after I reminded him of 1RR.  On the other hand V violated 1RR first, at 00:36, June 6 and 13:51, June 6, although he denies the second one is a revert.  One could argue that reverting the invalid 2nd revert shouldn't count.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Tillman is correct that removing text established by consensus qualifies as a revert and disruptive, unless a new consensus is established first. However, Tillman should have pointed to a specific section of the talk archives to verify the consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, Arthur -- and the note warning me of my inadvertant 1RR vio TOD,
 * Policy is clear re this situation. From the caution box at the top of this page: "Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before..." As you know, V has violated this reg before, and continues to do so, imo. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid making any further personal attacks on this page. You have not answered any of the questions posed in this thread, and I'm going to collapse this thread and get back on topic in the next 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest add to lede: Schneider quote re Sen Inhofe:
(Was: Viriditas latest add to lede: Schneider quote re Sen Inhofe::)
 * Climatologist Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism.Source:

Continuing his usual pattern, Viriditas is adding yet more contentious material to the lede, without the slightest effort to seek consensus, or even to supply a reasonable edit summary: his complete summary for this add is "Add Schneider."

This particular quote appears to refer to another topic: "Schneider himself compares Inhofe to the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy...", and thus doesn't seem to belong in this article: WP:SYN. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks on article talk pages. Please try to address the content only and not the contributor. If this isn't making sense and you wish to learn more about this topic, please review WP:NPA.  This will be the very last time I warn you.  The next attack will be reported.
 * The edit summary of "Add Schneider" is accurate and appropriate. If you don't understand how we use edit summaries and wish to learn more, please review Help:Edit summary.
 * The paraphrase I provided, "Climatologist Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism" is an accurate paraphrase. It does not refer to another topic.  It refers to this topic and this topic alone.  The entire source is about the political attacks related to climategate, not another topic.  In this particular instance, the political attacks on scientists related to climategate is coming from Inhofe, and Schneider compares Inhofe to  McCarthy.  McCarthy engaged in witch-hunts known as "McCarthyism".  If this isn't making sense, feel free to ask questions.


 * Functionally, there is no difference in meaning at all, other than the fact that I didn't mention Inhofe's name. The fact is, the political attacks on scientists are a major part of this article and need to be represented in the lead.  If you think we need a new section devoted to personal attacks on climate scientists, I would tend to agree. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph should be moved from the lede to the body (possibly further expanded), and summarized in the lede. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph summarizes concepts and content already in multiple sections of the body, but the body should certainly be expanded further. Breaking it down for you sentence by sentence to show you:
 * Overall, the incident was considered a public relations disaster for the scientific community.
 * Summarizes the response and public opinion and political fallout section
 * Public opinion on the subject remained polarised and sharply divided along political orientation.
 * Summarizes the response and public opinion and political fallout section
 * Climatologist Stephen Schneider compared the political attacks on climate scientists to the witch-hunts of McCarthyism.
 * Summarizes the response section as an example.
 * Former Republican House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy by Newsweek and The New York Times.
 * Summarizes the media reception section.
 * Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists.
 * Summarizes the media reception section.
 * Historian Spencer R. Weart, of the American Institute of Physics said the incident was unprecedented in the history of science, having "never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance."[10] The United States National Academy of Sciences expressed concern and condemned what they called "political assaults on scientists and climate scientists in particular".[11]
 * Summarizes the response and public opinion and political fallout section as an example.
 * Arthur, since you've shown an interest in expanding the article, perhaps you could now help expand the "Inquiries and reports" section as I've previously requested on the page? Obviously, you're not here to bite the ankles of contributors on the talk page, but to actually do the research and the hard work needed to improve this article, correct? Above, you've said that you can't write for the enemy, but I don't think you actually have a choice.  NPOV requires it. Viriditas (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tillman's comment is not a personal attack, but a comment relating to V's pattern of edits on this article. However, going back to my comment, the paragraph seems undue weight in the lede, as it provides a full (albeit disjointed) paragraph for a particular commentary on a reaction to the event.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's content dispute initiated by Tillman, and using the article headers in this way is personalizing the dispute, hence the personal attack. See my lengthy response on this at User_talk:Tillman.  I've removed my name from the header per WP:TALKNEW and WP:NPA.  An administrator like yourself should not be restoring personal attacks.  The statement above that I am "continuing his usual pattern" is another attack.  If you and Tillman continue to focus on the contributor rather than the content, I will escalate this further. Viriditas (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Your interpolated interpretation of how the paragraph summarizes the text is seriously faulty.  And you initiated the addition of the content which is disputed; the fact that Pete and Alex dispute it (I don't dispute the content of this one, just its prominence) doesn't make Pete the one to initiate the content dispute.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown anything "wrong". This is another IDONTLIKEIT reply.  You need to show how it is faulty.  Pete and Alex simply say IDONTLIKEIT over and over again, as you are doing.  Perhaps you could point me in the direction of a good lead section on a similar topic, of GA or FA level so that I can see what kind of lead section you are going for here.  If your major complaint involves representation in the body, then simply point out the parts that require more expansion.  However, I've already shown that the material adequately summarizes particular sections.  More to the point, why don't you make a list of the things that are disputed so we can check it off as we fix them.  Remember, we are working to improve this article.  It would help if you work towards those ends. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've restored your name in a subhead; the fact that it was your edit is relevant to the later commentary. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When an editor asks you not to add their name to talk page heading, they are fully in compliance with WP:NPA and WP:TALKNEW. It is considered basic Etiquette to abide by the wishes of other editors in matters concerning the use of their name in talk page headings.  Doing otherwise encourages battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] I have no objection to deleting V.s name on the subhead, & agree that I prob. shouldn't have used it. Apologies. So let's not get distracted from the content. V., do you agree this bit is in the wrong place here? If so, might be best for peace for you to move it, You do seem to be putting a lot of stuff in the lede which isn't (yet) in the main article. Bst, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that policy or guidelines request that names be removed from section headings when relevant; however, it is common courtesy, and if the original poster doesn't think it necessary (although I do think it changes the meaning of the initial post), then I have no objection to the change. Can we return to the content of the lede and the article.  I've moved this specific sentence from the lede into the body, as it's not a summary of the body nor sourced in the body nor appropriate in the lede.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Addition of pov-statement and syn tag
An editor recently added the pov-statement and syn tag article back into the lead section. Although we have talked about this before, per the template instructions, editors adding such tags should continue the discussion or reboot it. For the sake of clarity, will the editor who added the tags please briefly summarize their rationale below? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Is he arguing that the quotes are fabricated or taken out of context? Strange. And he's had plenty of time to explain it. Guettarda (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see that one, either. One could argue cherry-picking (although I don't see it), and that people other than climate sceptics argued that the emails provided evidence of a conspiracy (which I do see as a plausible argument, previously sourced), but those aren't the right tags.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * HI, Arthur. Thanks for your comment.


 * I thought we were still looking for a RS that uses the phrase "global warming conspiracy" re Climategate, but perhaps I lost track? (pulls up article) Nope: I'm sure V. would have the phrase prominently quoted in his Wall of Text cites, if he could have found one.  My objection still stands, the tags are legitimate, and we can resume discussion of this here. Though I'm not quite sure what else there is to argue about. As has been pointed out upthread, Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids use of inflammatory text in articles, even more so when it's unsupported by a RS. This really shouldn't be an issue. Perhaps someone is pushing a POV? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tillman, could you please answer the question directly? Why have you added the pov-statement and syn tag to this article?  Responding with "the tags are legitimate" and asserting that the text is "inflammatory" is neither an answer or response to the question in any way.  Please explain why you added the the two dispute tags to this article.  Per the template documentation, if you can't do this, other editors are allowed to remove them.  I hope this is clear.  Getting back on track, here is the statement you dispute:
 * "The story first broke in the blogosphere, with climate sceptics saying that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy."
 * Tillman, you say you dispute the neutrality of this statement and claim it is synthesis. Can you please talk about the neutrality and synthesis you see here?  Your claim that this is "inflammatory material" is an interesting personal opinion, but it isn't supported. The sources show, unambiguously, that the climate sceptics claimed the email was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.  Yet, you say this is "inflammatory".  Do you have a source that says this is "inflammatory"? Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

[ourdent] V, do you have a RS that calls Climategate a global warming conspiracy? If you do not, in my opinion, and that of other editors, your proposed use of this term in our article is improper WP:SYN.

As Alex Harvey others have argued upthread, and as our own global warming conspiracy page supports, "global warming conspiracy" is a pejorative term, and so requires sources of the highest quality to support its use. SFAICT, you don't have them. Pls don't respond with your usual, near-tendentious "wall of text". Which are your best sources? One or two will do. Note that I'm not arguing that a conspiracy isn't argued for by RS's: something about this should go into the body of the article first. Then we can summarize it for the lede. But your desired synthesis is unacceptable, as multiple editors have argued upthread. This is an active dispute. Please don't remove the tags until the dispute is resolved. Thank you, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Pete, have you looked at the sources used in the current article, specifically the sources next to the tags you added? We don't cite Wikipedia as sources, so your claim about its pejorative use requires more than "Wikipedia sez".  Further, we have dozens of sources documenting these claims as conspiracy theories, and I've provided dozens of them already. You'll need to explain why the sources in use aren't acceptable and substantiate your claim about the pejorative use of the term in relation to this topic to justify your use of these tags.  The conspiracy theories expressed by skeptics in the context of this topic are appropriately classified as global warming conspiracy theories, and this is supported by the sources in use.  Your objection to using this term isn't clear.  You personally find it pejorative, but it is the correct term. If you don't like the sources in the article, feel free to look through the others I've previously offered. "Climategate" has as its foundation, a global warming conspiracy theory, and its proponents have espoused this theory in numerous articles.  I'm really not following your objection. I don't see the term as pejorative, but rather as the proper categorization of the type of claim, claims that have been documented as conspiracies about global warming. Are you saying this description is inaccurate?  On what basis? Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * V. I think you've made my point by just adding Category:Conspiracy theories to the article. Putting Climategate in the company of Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and   Mind control -- could this possibly be pejorative? Or POV pushing ?  Good grief. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the central claims of 'climategate' were true - that a huge group of scientists internationally were conspiring to put forward scientific nonsense and perverting the peer-review process in order to do so - it would have been the denouement of the biggest scientific conspiracy of all time. Unfortunately for the accusers, all the enquiries have found that they were not true, which puts the attempt firmly into the same category as the two examples you mention. --Nigelj (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Climategate concluded: Scientists cleared and exonerated, climate science intact
Arthur Rubin and other editors have expressed confusion over which of the major allegations the scientists were cleared and exonerated. Let's use the secondary sources to find out:


 * 1) House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
 * "...no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming..."
 * 1) Independent Climate Change Review
 * "A British panel...exonerated the scientists...of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming...All five investigations have come down largely on the side of the climate researchers, rejecting a number of criticisms raised by global-warming skeptics."
 * 1) International Science Assessment Panel
 * "The assessment panel today released a report concluding that CRU's research was honest and fair, even though the statistical methods and bookkeeping skills employed by the scientists there could have been improved. "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever," panel Chair Ron Oxburgh, a former geologist and Shell chair, said at a media briefing this morning."
 * 1) Pennsylvania State University
 * "Pennsylvania State University investigative committee has cleared a climate scientist of ethical misconduct in connection with an exchange of e-mails about global warming known as Climate-gate...The Penn State panel...dismissed three of the allegations as not credible but continued to examine whether Mann "seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities." On Thursday it concluded that he had not...the panel...unanimously concluded "that there is no substance to the allegation" that Mann engaged in academic misconduct."
 * 1) United States Environmental Protection Agency
 * "EPA said critics "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues"...those who attempted to interpret the e-mails came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole." They also "impugned the ethics of climate scientists and characterised actions as falsifications and manipulation with no basis for support," the EPA continued.  "Petitioners often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."
 * 1) Department of Commerce
 * "Researchers at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been cleared of any scientific wrongdoing in the 2009 "climategate" uproar. "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures," said the report by the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General late last week...The other investigations have also cleared the scientists of wrongdoing."

Any questions? Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picking, again. I don't have time to investigate all the reliably sourced criticism of the scientists which used to be in the article, but primary and secondary sources report that:
 * Scientists did not respond properly to FOIA requests.
 * At least one scientist did suggest that E-mails be deleted to avoid future FOIA requests, although the context suggests he may have been joking and that there is no evidence that E-mails were actually deleted. (Whether there would have been evidence if there had been deletions is unclear.)
 * Improper statistical methods were used, and no statistical experts were consulted. (Although the study goes on to say that they didn't know whether proper statistical methods would have produced different results.)
 * The "hockey stick" was misleading, although a correctly formatted graph might lead to the same conclusions.
 * As for your assertion of "cleared" or "exonerated", they all apply to specific charges, which do not encompass all the charges made. Your examples:
 * no evidence to support " had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming."
 * exonerated " of charges that they had manipulated their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming"
 * "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever" is a good one, but it's quoting the statement of the chair, rather than of the committee, making it tertiary, and somewhat less reliable.
 * that there is no substance to the allegation that "Mann engaged in academic misconduct".
 * The rest of that article is so weasely that, if it were used to support anything, it would have to be uncertainty that any scientist was doing the right thing.
 * (paraphrasing) NOAA has been cleared of scientific misconduct.
 * Still misses a number of allegations. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And the current, reliable secondary source you are using can be found where? Sources published after the investigations were concluded are welcome. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's start with my allegation 1. Alex already provided a secondary source.  It contradicts your assertion that the scientists were "cleared" of "wrongdoing".  If that's not what you mean to say, then please say what you mean to say about "cleared".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss. Our article already covers this topic in the ICO section. Resurrecting old topics after substantial discussion is symptomatic of tendentious editing on your part.  The lead already mentions the criticism of transparency, of which FOI is a part.  Practically every post-investigation secondary sources summarizes these allegations in precisely this way.  There is no issue here to discuss.  Arthur, which current, reliable secondary sources have you actually read?  Could you point me to a few?  I'm going away now, but when I come back, I expect to see some basic research from you, including current secondary sources.  You are attempting to overemphasize what you see as wrongdoing, when no breach of the FOIA was ever found to occur.  You know the that subsequent investigations have blamed the  university for mishandling the FOIA requests.  Further, according to our article, Lord Oxburgh (and others) have said that "repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others "could have amounted to a campaign of harassment" and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved."  No wrongdoing by scientists, but allegations made against the University and alleged harassment of climate scientists by climate sceptics.  Should we document more of the harassment and death threats against climate scientists by climate sceptics in the lead, and explain in the lead that the repeated FOI requests were part of this campaign?  Should we also summarize the clearing and exoneration from six separate investigations in the lead?  Looking at the reliable secondary sources on this matter, we find that my one word summary of the FOI claims in the use of the word "transparency" are used again and again, over and over, in source after source.  That the scientists were cleared of wrongdoing is correct. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have changed the wording now to the following:
 * "All [allegations] were rejected, with inquiries finding no evidence of any scientific misconduct. Climate scientists were, however, criticized for their disorganized methods, bunker mentality and lack of transparency."
 * While this is moving in the direction of an honest presentation of the facts, it is still not true. It has been shown clearly above, both with reference to primary and secondary sources, that the inquiries did not reject 'all' allegations, but only some of them. Your second sentence tries to make up for this by sort of contradicting the first sentence, and admitting that the scientists were nevertheless 'criticised'. What we now need is for the first sentence to be made accurate, like the most serious allegations were rejected, and then you can say, although the CRU was criticised for their handling of FOIA requests and bunker mentality. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "All serious allegations by climate skeptics were rejected". This is true.  The climategate conspiracy theory (which is simply a repackaging of the global warming conspiracy theory word for word) claimed that the data was altered to promote AGW.  None of that is true.  More than six investigations (we still haven't added the Associated Press investigation by Borenstein, Satter and Ritter) rejected all major allegations by climate skeptics.  No investigation found fraud or scientific misconduct.  The primary conclusions circle around a group of scientists who stand accused of being human, of acting like "disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention."  Is there any greater crime than this? Investigations like the House of Commons Science and Technology committee expressed their concern and sympathies:


 * "Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew--or perceived--were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work...In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes)."


 * According to the secondary source Skeptical Inquirer, ("Investigations exonerate climate research unit of scientific misconduct", July-August 2010) the committee found that there was a "culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate skeptics."  It went on to claim that the "failure of UEA to grasp fully the potential range of damage to CRU and UEA by the non-disclosure of Freedom of Information requests was regrettable."  According to SI, the committee "urged the unit and the scientific community to take steps "to ensure greater transparency."


 * Imagine that. My work on the lead section is correct after all. If you reply here, Alex, please provide secondary sources.  I do not want to hear your interpretations of primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleared up some of the worst of the errors in the lede, and some more details of the misconduct of the scientists needs to be added. By "misconduct", I mean "misfeasance", not "malfeasance".  I agree with Alex that the lead was better before V started working on it, but I don't want to return to that without consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the "me too" and "I don't like it"? How many times are you going to assert that such and such edit wasn't an improvement because you don't personally approve but that you agree with X and that makes it OK?  That's nonsense, Arthur.  You need to explain what is wrong with the content, and why you disagree.  You never do that, you just delete it.  You are required to explain why you deleted the material.  I'm not going to ask you again, Arthur. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything it would be nonfeasance .. not mis- or mal-feasance. And talking about it in the aspect of tort-law is wrong, since there is no such claim. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * V, it is increasingly unhelpful for you to be talking about a 'climategate conspiracy theory'. I don't have a clue what that is, nor do I want to know. The irony of you using the talk page as a soapbox to communicate your original interpretation of off topic primary sources you referred us to above while at the same time berating others for discussing other relevant primary sources is not lost on me. Anyhow, I have looked at your secondary sources, and surprise, surprise, they don't say what you're claiming they're saying. As Arthur said, you have simply quote mined for the bits you like and ignored the bits you don't like. To take just the first example, you referred us in [61] to an obscure Indian newspaper, where the first five paragraphs of a Reuters article is found. You use that article to make the claim that the scientists were completely cleared of all misconduct despite the fact that the very article title says something else, i.e. that they were only 'largely' cleared. That article goes on to say some other things you're not admitting, like that Willis regarded some of the emails as 'appalling'. But let's look at another secondary source that completely contradicts your wording, e.g. Freedom of Information Still a Climategate Sore Point, by Fred Pearce at New Scientist. According to Pearce,
 * "One of the most serious charges arising from the emails was that scientists at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had broken freedom-of-information law by discussing the possible deletion of emails about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They did this shortly after a climate sceptic had invoked the law in an effort to see the correspondence. The MPs felt the main inquiry into the affair, headed by former civil servant Muir Russell, failed to investigate this 'serious allegation' properly. It was, they said, 'unsatisfactory that we are left with a verbal reassurance from the vice-chancellor that the emails still exist', but no proof."
 * Ergo, not all of the reliable sources agree that even all of the 'serious' allegations were dismissed. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Alex, you don't seem to be paying attention. What you call "off topic primary sources" were taken directly from secondary sources, in this instance, from Skeptical Inquirer.  There is no irony here, Alex.  What this means, and I've tried to explain this to you before, is that a secondary source found the primary source material important enough to highlight, comment on, and publish.  Not a Wikipedia editor.  Is any of this making sense to you, Alex? Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur, that's an improvement but I think it's unacceptable that this article can not mention the FOIA in the lead. The controversy is first and foremost about the scientists' refusals to comply with FOIA requests. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rarely seen a clearer case of historical revisionism than that. Have you missed the "Hide the decline" dance? Or the claims that the emails disprove global warming? Or that the peer-review process has been corrupted? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan has a good point; (almost) all of the major allegations were disproved, including the ones he just mentioned. However, the FOIA request handling errors should be in the lede as misconduct (you're correct, it is "nonfeasance" rather than "misfeasance") considered proved, or the "cleared" section should be removed entirely from the lede.  I would prefer adding FOIA.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The FoIA part is a concern (by the investigations - including the one that Alex is referring to) - but it is neither shown as mal,mis or non-feasance - it wasn't investigated at all - so neither is it cleared, proven or alleged in the investigations - simply noted as a problem that should be cleared up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have misread the sources. The ICO statement on the section 50 investigation looked as if it were proved and a settlement reached; and the Parlimentary inquiry suggested that the ICO should investigate the section 77 violations, even if a conviction would be time-barred.  Still, we need a reliable source to note that the FOIA handling problems were not investigated, and that should be in the lede.
 * "Cleared" implies "cleared of all charges", not "cleared of the few charges investigated". Now that I removed it from V's version of the lede, it seems fair.
 * However, looking back at the first paragraph, the FOIA charges came from the ICO, not sceptic blogs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FOIA is central to the Climategate controversy

 * Welcome back Kim. There are two aspects here: (1) the bad handling of FoIA requests was one of the primary causes of Climategate controversy. We know that the hackers advertised FOIA as their reason for releasing the emails and data. (2) while FOIA may have been out of scope of the inquiries (I take your word on this), it was certainly discussed, and we know that the inquiries criticised the CRU for this (in fact, the lead already says this, although stops short of mentioning the FOIA. Both of these aspects should be represented in a lead of this size. The lead is, after all, about Climategate, not the inquiries. Alex Harvey (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Alex is of course correct -- FOIA is central to CG. It appears to have instigated the release of the CRU emails (etc). Most (all?) of the inquiries criticized the UEA's handling of FOIA requests, and the UK ICO wrote that there was prima facie evidence of violations by UEA of the FOIA.

I have no idea why editors have fought mention of FOIA violations in this article from the beginning (actually I do have an idea...). And the FOIA section is possibly the worst part of this hairball of an article. This won't hunt, fellows. FOIA is absolutely at the heart of the controversy, and UEA continues to refuse FOIA requests for their data: see here. So much for the CG controversy being closed.

It's also totally unacceptable for editor Viridtitas to reinsert the "stolen" tag in the lede re the email leak. This was fought out long & hard in the talk archives, which see. Viriditas, your continued insertion/reinsertion of controversial material without the slightest effort to seek consensus, must cease. I've asked you privately to tone down your strident, hectoring Talk comments, to no effect. We will have to consider other remedies, if you continue your disruptive editing and personal attacks.

On a lighter note. Welcome back, KDP! Look forward to your contributions, and (hopefully) polite sparring over details. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The FOI aspect came out of skeptic blogs organising a form of DDOS attack on the CRU, with the aim that by getting as many readers as possible to make hundreds of simultaneous FOI requests they could prevent the scientists working and also prevent them taking holidays, from what I remember. This was against the background that much of the data being requested was subject to copyright and other restrictions by its original providers, and that disentangling the data that could be released by CRU under FOI from that that couldn't would take considerable man-hours. The conclusion was that FOI requests were so legally complex that they should be handled in future by university legal experts, not practising scientists, and also that the providers of raw data must be leant on to make them remove copyright and other restrictions to make the whole of the science more open source. I personally wholeheartedly support both of these proposed solutions, except for the cost of heavyweight new legal departments to deal with skeptic bloggers and their readers, and I hope that this story is going to be properly told here. --Nigelj (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If there had been a log of FOIA requests (as was required to track them, as required by law, but was not done), then duplicate requests could be combined, and most of the effect of the DDOS would be blunted. And I don't recall your conclusion being in the reports so far published.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's also noteworthy that, when asked, CRU/Phil Jones couldn't actually find any of these supposed restrictions by national weather bureaus & such. By my recollection, the only one that he found that looked half-official was from Norway, and it turned out that Norway didn't want Jones retailing their data because he had "corrected" it, and Norway didn't agree with the corrections. So the whole thing appears to be Jones giving semi-plausible excuses -- recall his email "I think I'll delete the data before I send it out via FOIA" (rough quote from memory). --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect Pete. You should never eat what you read on blogs as being factual. (and you did read this on WUWT where people were wildly speculating (incorrectly))... Several countries hold copyright on their climate data, and without agreement the data couldn't be released. This is in the reports - which i hope that you've read a bit more vigorously than various blogs? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Jones's "good faith" re FOI requests may be judged by this quote from one of his emails:
 * "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone." Phil Jones email,  --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What does this have to do with my comment? Are you really seriously cherry-picking and quoting an email as evidence here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [outdent] Hi, Kim -- like old times, eh? I'm not really proposing anything, just showing Jones's mindset re FOI compliance. Since there is continued resistance here to covering the FOI aspects of CG. We can worry about such details when (if?) we get to rewriting the FOIA part of the article. Given the rate of progress on cleaning up the lede, I'm not holding my breath... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, using the emails to invoke an emotional view is not NPOV. Not to mention that in general emails/comments of the type "i'd rather  than do " tell us nothing about reality. Try to stick to secondary reliable sources, and keep the blog speculations and personal views out of this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * e/c
 * http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2010/july/climatedataproject
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm particularly question M
 * http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.700-climategate-scientist-breaks-his-silence.html?full=true (sorry, needs a subscription, I think)
 * http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece
 * These are a few reliable sources from outside of the reviews, and away from the initial media flurry. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a one that I can read supports your statements. #1 says that UEA is planning to do better, without going into details.  #2 and #4 quote Jones as saying part of you report; but they support Tillman's interpretation better, if there is a shred of allowable information supporting it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, Arthur. My recollections are mostly from reading McIntyre's blog reports at the time -- CA was the source of the "flood" of FOIA requests for the claimed confidentiality agreements. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Climategate: Impeding Information Requests? This opens with "This is the final part in a series on the fake scandal of Climategate." -- which may please some here. At any rate, it's a fairly straightforward review, by James Wight on Friday, 26 November, 2010 -- but has essentially nothing from the McIntyre/CA point of view. My summary will have to do for that, for now. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * [outdent] Here's the best I could find in a fairly-thorough Google on "FOI requests CRU Climategate Phil Jones":
 * I don't think skepticalscience.com is a reliable source as it is more of a blog, but given its general pro-AGW bias it is still a good example. If I may quote some of this:
 * "The Review concluded: [W]e find that a fundamental lack of engagement by the CRU team with their obligations under FoIA/EIR, both prior to 2005 and subsequently, led to an overly defensive approach that set the stage for the subsequent mass of FoIA/EIR requests in July and August 2009. We recognize that there was deep suspicion within CRU, as to the motives of those making detailed requests. Nevertheless, the requirements of the legislation for release of information are clear and early action would likely have prevented much subsequent grief. [10.6] As Phil Jones has admitted, CRU did the wrong thing with regard to Freedom of Information requests."
 * Clearly no one should want any pro-AGW bias to exceed that of skepticalscience.com so at the bare minimum we'd surely all agree that our article must include a concession similar to the above. The fact that Phil Jones himself admitted wrongdoing needs to be also included and should put to bed any suggestions to the contrary. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first conclusion is correct: scepticalscience.com is not a reliable source ... at all. The rest is incorrect because you failed to follow your conclusion and ignore the source. Could you try to keep a neutral stance here? "pro-AGW bias" is not such. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

`
 * Pro-forma edit to foil archive-bot. Active topic, see below. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Background
We are now in the post-"climategate" era, and the article requires major reorganization and restructuring to reflect the historical perspective. Because of recentism, the article still has an unorganized feel to it, with generalized headings such as "timeline of the initial incident", "content of the documents" "responses" and "media reception" used as dumping grounds for text, rather than for actual construction of narrative and discussion of key topics. A "Timeline of the initial incident" is implicit in an article like this, but when used as section 1, it does not promote an understanding for the general reader. It would make more sense to being begin with a "Background" section describing the events leading up to the incident. Climate skeptics on this page should welcome this change, as it will permit them to briefly write about and mention the FOIA requests. Our daughter article, Climatic_Research_Unit_documents covers some of this background, and may help inform this article. Viriditas (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It is time for a root-and-branch review of this article and the documents one. To pick up the metaphors in the discussion about the Richard A. Muller article below, it is customary in the history of a battle or a war to look at the precursors and probable causes of the outbreak, as well as the immediate consequences and wider implications of the results. I think readers of the future will need context to understand what went on here in 2009/10. It may be decades before the full story will really be told, but we can certainly do better than we have here in some areas and in overall structure. Most of what we have here was added item-by-item as the news stories broke, with an increasing lack of interest taking over as the subsequent investigation reports came out. Many editors at the time were keen to see a 'balanced' coverage on the basis that we may actually have been witnessing the exposure and destruction of a whole corrupt western scientific establishment. Of course we now know that we were not and so that false 'balance' now can be put into better context in a few remaining areas. --Nigelj (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC) P.S., Viriditas, I have taken the liberty of tidying up some minor vandalism and/or typos in your comment above.

Globalize media coverage
The media coverage section has quotes and material attributed to


 * 1) New York Times
 * 2) Newsweek
 * 3) The European practice on energy, environment and climate change of communications firm Burson-Marsteller
 * 4) Boston Herald
 * 5) Wall Street Journal
 * 6) The Atlantic
 * BBC
 * 1) The Economist
 * 2) The Columbia Journalism Review
 * CNN

So out of ten sources, we have one European and two from the UK. The other six seven are from the USA. This was not an American incident or an American controversy; climate research has worldwide implications. The viewpoints presented by the article should represent this. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nigel: that's a good point, one that I'd noticed myself, but with the recent unpleasantness... UK seems under-represented, US over.
 * When we prune, I'd suggest dropping the Boston Herald bit I just restored -- other sources already say much the same. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, is there any partic. reason we call this section "Media reception", rather than the more usual "Media reaction" or Media coverage"? The latter would at least match our See also hatnote. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

ICO ruling
Not that I am planning to get involved at this page again at the moment, but the ICO ruling seems to bear on this subject directly. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see what it has to do with the hacking. Was the data in question part of the stolen material? --TS 12:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only indirectly related, I'm afraid. ICO required them to release some data, but it's not apparently related to the leaked material.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fred Pearce writes, "The ruling also marks a victory for critics of the UEA and its Climatic Research Unit in the "climategate" affair. It comes at the end of a two-year rearguard action by UEA climate scientists to prevent publication of their "crown jewels", an archive of world temperature records collected jointly with the Met Office." . Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting reading, good reporting (as usual) by Fred Pearce. This article will be an important part of our long-delayed FOI section, the real heart (and apparent cause) of the Climategate affair.


 * Note a second RS story at Washington Post -- which has some obvious errors, however. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good coverage on Nature News Blog. Note that this has nothing to do with the CRU e-mails, but is related to the coordinated FOI DDOS campaign that preceded the e-mail data theft. It appears from some of the more sensationalist coverage linked above that, since there was nothing much in the stolen e-mails, some still hope to bring down the whole of climate science by finding something amiss in this temperature data. --Nigelj (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nigel, Thanks for the Nature bit, which is helpful. But IB your POV is showing, rather flagrantly....  Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pots and kettles? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

"We are being completely knocked apart in the press"
[ WP:BLP violations removed; please note that the onus is on the person restoring content that has been challenged to demonstrate that it is BLP-compliant, something that was not done when this was restored ] [unsigned note added by Guettarda, 07:21, 18 July 2011]


 * Note: see this diff for the material G. objects to. I think he's being silly, and the thread won't make any sense to third-parties without this. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the article, once it settles down a bit. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a combination of hearsay from a dubious character, and synthesis by Pete: the Graun article doesn't seem to make any mention of the CRU controversy. No doubt Pete will find blogs making a great deal of it, but this looks like a coatrack here. Much better sourcing needed for any addition to the article, and the arrest looks completely irrelevant. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * RS story on Wallis & CG/UEA: Ex-News of the World man advised UEA over ‘climategate’, EDP-24, Norfolk July 16, 2011


 * OK, so add it to the Neil Wallis article, where it might, just possibly, be relevant. But I have warned you repeatedly about using Wikipedia to smear people you disagree with. Guettarda (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Guetterda, please hold the wild accusations.  Fixed a broken ref, cited the rest. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wild accusations"? The material you added was totally unsourced. You had three sources, none of which even vaguely supported your claims. And saying that there was a broken link in the material I removed is utterly false. You have a long history of engaging in unsourced smears against living people here. And please stop misspelling my user name. Just stop it with the BLP violations, stop it with the false accusations and lay off the rudeness. Guettarda (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, it's still a dodgy source. The source it's taken from may be reliable enough to use as a source for Wallis' words, but an interview with someone who has been charged with a crime (and is thus, by definition, a dodgy source for factual information) is not good enough for a BLP. We have higher standards for accusations against living people, not lower ones. Guettarda (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This still looks like a smear, based on nothing but a local paper's interest in trying to find some reference to its area in a national scandal. There needs to be evidence that this is significant to the controversy as a whole: uni hires pr agency after hacking seems to about the sum of it, and that's hardly very significant news. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be pretty well established that UEA did in fact use Neil Wallis as a PR consultant, and there is nothing controversial about adding that fact to the article, perhaps as part of the Responses/University of East Anglia section. There is nothing unusual or sinister about a large organisation obtaining PR help, and it's in no sense a smear to say that they did, or to name the individual they used.  Obviously we shouldn't use this article to speculate about the allegations that are flying around his other activities. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not controversial in any way or form - the question is.... as always .... is it relevant? Or is this just a news-bite that gets interest because of another not related controversy. Wallis is (imho) not interesting here, but probably is elsewhere. Considering all the more relevant stuff that can't make the threshold of relevance, this one doesn't even merit interest (again imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Are we really planning on adding coverage of every piece of work all the people involved in the News of the World scandal ever did? And dotting all over Wikipedia in the articles about the other organisations they worked for? It sounds like a massive attempt at original synthesis to me. The statement that this man once did did some PR work for UEA, and is now involved in the NOTW story, did not (as far as we know from the sources) affect either the causes or the outcomes of the UEA hacking controversy. I wonder if the journalists trying to associate these two stories here, are going through all the items on the CV of every arrested NOTW worker with the same enthusiasm? I think it's an attempt at some kind of guilt-by-association smear, myself. Let some RS show some actual outcome or result of the association before it is notable enough to include, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As is usual with breaking news, we should wait for details and analyses to appear in RS's before adding this to the article, I think.


 * Still, it's an interesting development, no? Particularly as the Outside Organisation is apparently known for spreading disinformation, and conducting "covert ops." One wonders why UEA would hire such a group. I would imagine that FOIA requests will follow.  Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Still, it's an interesting development, no?" - certainly not - unless we're substituting for a discussion forum. You are very much speculating and projecting personal POV - I suggest that you keep this at home - or on the various blogs that you frequent :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, Pete, your smear is showing. Speculation and an attempt to link the uni with unsavoury characters such as Cameron simply shows that you're trying to spread disinformation. The blunt and not terribly significant fact is that they engaged a PR firm after being chastised in the press for poor PR. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[outdent] Dave, I strongly object to your accusation that I am "smearing" CRU. OO's reputation -- and staff (some now arrested) -- are what they are. Anyway, let's wait to see what develops, eh? I promise not to call it "Outside-gate" ;-] Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, let's wait to see what develops, eh? Excellent idea! Eventually, we will probably want to include some mention of this under Section 3.1. There is no rush to do this, but on the contrary, every indication we should wait for things to settle out. Certainly it's noteworthy that the UEA hired a PR man. Care must be taken not to add more than due weight to it.
 * Just a reminder: WP reflects what the mainstream media reports. This by the hometown paper would be an appropriate RS, but I think we should wait at least a week to insert it. One sentence noting the engagement of a PR professional with a hyperlink to Neil Wallis would suffice. Meanwhile, a flurry of editing at the Wallis page would be expected and acceptable. His arrest has nothing to do with the CRU, at least not as far as anyone knows at present. Yopienso (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've answered your own point there, Yopienso. His arrest has nothing to do with the CRU. What else makes associating the two suddenly notable? Unless we have RSs explicitly stating the influence whatever got Neil Wallis arrested had on the CRU e-mail controversy, we have nothing to say here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Yopienso yes, we reflect what the media reports, but not blindly nor completely, or we'd simply be a mirror site. We select what to include, using judgement. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nigel and Sphilbrick: Maybe you read too quickly what I wrote.
 * Certainly it's noteworthy that the UEA hired a PR man. Care must be taken not to add more than due weight to it. . . One sentence noting the engagement of a PR professional with a hyperlink to Neil Wallis would suffice.
 * I do not think any mention of Wallis's arrest belongs in this article. I do think the fact that he was hired to help remedy the UAE's PR problem should be briefly mentioned. Yopienso (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Most of the arguments here seem to be against a quite different proposal, which it's not clear to me that anyone is actually making.  We already comment on UEA's PR problems, and the appointment of PR professionals are obviously relevant in this context. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't mention Wallis at the moment, and never have in the past. What makes him notable enough to mention now? Ahh, the fact that he's been arrested. That's the synthetic smear that I don't like - even if, as of this proposal, we expect people to click his link (Easter-egg style) to make the connection in their own heads. It's a step along the way to explicit synthesis, it's unnecessary and it's totally unsupported by RSs. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple solution: Don't name Wallis, but Outside Organization. Or don't even name them, just note something along this line: "Realizing there was a public image and communications problem, the University hired a public relations professional." Sourced then to the Norfolk paper or the Welwyn Hatfield Times. The reason we haven't mentioned this before is because we didn't know it. Anyone can see that the hiring of a PR firm is part of the response from UEA. I repeat that undue weight should not be given this bit of information. Yopienso (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a smear Tillman? You throw up the most tenuous of connections here, but edit war to remove very reliably sourced criticism from articles about "skeptics". Your agenda-driven editing is incredibly transparent and has stepped into the real of disruption. Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't deserve inclusion in the article at this time. The arrest is titillating, but no identified relationship to CRU. If some evidence turns up that Outside spread information, then it would be relevant, but at the moment, that isn't close to being established.-- SPhilbrick  T  14:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As the one who brought this up, I'd still recommend holding off a bit longer, to let more details emerge. Though Guettarda's idea of adding a bit to Neil Wallis now, seems appropriate. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some more details, in a (probably) RS: The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link. Interesting reading. I'm not familiar with the Energy Tribune (redirect to its editor), but it seems respectable. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've just shot yourself in the foot. This is the last line of the article:
 * Hat tip to: Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit for this story.
 * Yopienso (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Steve McIntyre bringing the story to their attention doesn't necessarily make it or the publication unreliable. I'm sure even Time and Sixty Minutes will listen to tips.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. ET's reporter seems to have done some independent reporting and fact-checking as well. And McIntyre has been quoted or credited in a wide range of MSM pubs. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt if ET is a reliable source. It's a self-published web opinion "journal". From their self-description:
 * "Our motto is “Leading the debate. Beating the Street.” We publish on the Web to help you understand the key issues in the energy sector and to help you make money in the energy business. We believe our news and analysis, combined with our various stock lists and indices, will allow you to do just that. We publish because we have strongly held beliefs about energy. Here are a few of them:"
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup external links section
The external links section requires serious cleanup. I don't see how links to old sources like "The Great Climategate Debate" are helpful or needed. We probably don't even need an external links section, but for now, it should contain only the most important links, such as links to the multiple reports exonerating the scientists. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you on that link. Video of actual testimony before the House of Commons, and any other testimony leading to reports, seems appropriate, but a debate?  However, I'm not going to use one of my 3RRs to remove the link (as you known, removal of content is considered a "revert" for the purpose of 3RR, if not necessarily 1RR.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Richard A. Muller article Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?
Add [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? The Berkeley Earth project say they are about to reveal the definitive truth about global warming] by Ian Sample 27.February.2011 ... Richard A. Muller of the Berkeley Earth project (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) is convinced his approach will lead to a better assessment of how much the world is warming. 99.19.43.74 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Related update May 25, 2011 in Scientific American and reprinted "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear. In the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 99.19.43.74 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No possible relevance to this article, even if the editorials were accurate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid extremist wording such as "no possible" (reference Paul Collier's The Plundered Planet), see excerpt:   99.19.43.74 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arthur Rubin. The present article is about a specific battle that was fought in the war against science. The idea that the war can be ended by removing any of the remaining scientific doubts is at best naïve, as it completely ignores the motivations of this war and the techniques used in it. The similar war against science related to the smoking / lung cancer connection also did not end when the remaining scientific doubts were removed. It ended when spreading doubt about the science was no longer effective in preventing action by politicians. In any case, your article is related to the war, not to the battle. Hans Adler 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks this is about a "war against science" is probably incapable of NPOV editing 86.182.195.34 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does knowledge of a subject make one incapable of NPOV editing? The war tobacco industry vs. science is very well documented in scholarly literature such as this due to the fact that the tobacco industry had to release a lot of formerly secret strategy documents. They knew they were wrong, and they knew they were going to lose. They just wanted to postpone anti-smoking laws as long as possible to maximise their profit.
 * The strategies applied to postpone effective action against global warming were very much the same initially, although of course they have since been refined further. Initially some of the same bogus research institutes such as The Heartland Institute were engaged in both. See also the all-round 'expert' Fred Singer. This second war has also been documented in some scholarly sources, although there are no smoking guns yet as no internal documents were released due to legal discovery. Hans Adler 22:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For some further reading, see Merchants of Doubt, Eric Pooley's "The Climate War" (see Politics of global warming (United States)), Requiem for a Species, and watch The Age of Stupid, for starters ... 99.181.129.104 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "no smoking guns yet"? The whole point about these emails is that they suggested distortion of peer review processes both in journals and IPCC reports, hiding data which might cast doubt on the relationship between tree rings and temperature, and refusal to provide data to those seeking to understand and replicate analyses with attempts to undermine environmental Freedom of Information requests by deleting correspondence. 86.182.195.34 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, numerous reliable sources conclude no smoking guns, the whole point about the emails is that they've been quote-mined to suggest the misdemeanours you list. Misuse of private correspondence by those attacking science is a common theme. . . dave souza, talk 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be of interest: The Republican War on Science.  99.181.141.251 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Does the book mention climategate?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear a response to IP user 86.182.195.34. 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This German language wp page may be of interest Mr. Rubin ---> de:Benutzer:Dudenfreund/Dudenfreund’s Law seen on Talk:350.org/Archive_3.  99.190.81.244 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that Arthur Rubin's use of the phrase "No possible relevance" was inappropriate too strong. However, having read the article, the reference to the "Climategate" issue is tangential; partially explains some aspects of Muller's impetus, but doesn't shed any light on the article in any useful way. I see no section on fallout (other than political fallout) but even if there were, this is too minor a connection to deserve mention.--  SPhilbrick  T  16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Arthur, the above IP has been spamming that and similar links about Dr. Muller all over wikipedia climatespace. It's exasperating to explain over and over why the linked article isn't relevant enough for a given article when it's been simultaneously suggested at four different articles.... at best (not pun intended) it's really only relevant in Dr. Muller's own article... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the term climatespace related to the denialosphere, as seen on ManBearPig ("a common reference in the Denialosphere", Climate change denial)?  99.181.157.254 (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Investigation of theft
The article says only "The investigation is as yet unresolved." It may be too early for Wikipedia purposes, but see this recent article about a number of possible connections to the Murdoch hacking empire. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been drawn to my attention that the Daily Kos has commented on this, still very much in the realm of speculation imo. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely, James Murdoch wrote an op-ed in Dec. 2009 arguing for climate legislation and green energy. That conflicts with the memo sent out by Fox around the same time and their promotion of climategate.  RS agree that Fox pushed the climategate/scientists as criminals/global warming is a hoax line more than any other news outlet.  Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also see "We are being completely knocked apart in the press", upthread. Early days, as Dave remarked. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Clean energy is a conservative cause by James Murdoch in the 4.December.2009 Washington Post (Politico (newspaper) referenced directly) 99.112.214.186 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Joe Romm recently wrote a highly speculative piece trying to link the Murdoch scandals to the CRU hacking, based on the fact that a corrupt Murdoch associate worked for the Metropolitan Police and was later hired by the University of East Anglia as a PR flack. This is highly unlikely to gain traction, but if and when it does then it should be covered, albeit very cautiously. --TS 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one of the main subjects of the Olbermann piece on Daily Kos linked by dave souza up above at 21:42. It provides one explanation of why an investigation never happened but doesn't shed any light on the hacking. There are enough good sources at this point to add some of this Wallis-related material to a section about the investigation.  Although Sean Hoare, the primary whistleblower, was conveniently found dead the day after the police commissioner resigned and a day before the parliament began their hearings, Hoare did mention in various sources that there were other private investigators and players who had more information and were waiting in the wings.  The number of coincidences here cannot go unnoticed.  That the Murdoch empire was able to infiltrate the British government isn't all that surprising.  The U.S. government has been under corporate control for five decades. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I love Keith Olbermann and even now I can't just click a link on the MSNBC site to see his show I still never miss an episode. However this is very obscure stuff (I'm also for my sins a Joe Romm fan and I saw it at Climate Progress first). This link doesn't seriously compromise the Met's involvement to the extent that it will get past most journalists' bullshit filters. If and when it does (and sorry Joe, sorry Keith, sorry Kostas, it isn't there yet) then it will be all over, because if we had the proverbial smoking gun this would be a huge story. We don't and the journalists don't so they're interested, some of them, but they're waiting for that smoke.

Coincidences, conspiracy theories and whatnot: meh, we've had enough of those, most of them coming from the poisonous nasties who were out to deny the science. But the same kind of reasoning coming from anybody else is still just as bad. --TS 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing it, eh? Murdoch's empire doesn't publish "huge stories", they create them. That's the essence of a manufactured controversy, and it is the central core of the allegations in the phone hacking scandal. Meanwhile, whatever happened to the investigation of the hacked emails? Remember all those corporations that were hacked by Anonymous?  The U.S. government tracked the hackers down and arrested them.  It must not be a priority for the British government to track down the climategate hackers, and it is just a coincidence that Murdoch employees working with the police discouraged the investigation. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If this wasn't by an obvious regular I would close this per WP:FORUM, and my intent is to do that if we can't redirect this discussion towards the article. --TS 03:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want. While you're at it, you may want to contact the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica, as their article on "The Environment", which includes a section on climategate, has been infiltrated by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and we don't stand for that nonsense here. You know that. That's why we have a verifiability policy and a neutral point of view. --TS 03:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should mention that the covertly funded Global Warming Policy Foundation was founded days after the hacking at UEA, and its sole purpose appears to be centered around publishing criticism of the investigation into the hacking. It's amazing how fast they were able to form that organization after the hacking took place. Almost a miracle, even. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Linkage of Manufactured controversy
If you were trying to say, "highly orchestrated and manufactured controversy, then "manufactured controversy" should not be linked. If the sources say "highly orchestrated" and "a manufactured controversy", then it makes sense to link, although ungrammatical.  I'm not sure which way makes more sense, here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the latter, of course, and correct. Didn't you look at the sources, Arthur?  It is not "ungrammatical", you're just not reading it right.  Again, "Sherwood Boehlert called the attacks a "manufactured distraction", and the dispute was described as a "highly orchestrated" and manufactured controversy..."  Is this making sense, Arthur?  Highly orchestrated and manufactured.  I'm sorry, but your trivial objection doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, but manufactured controversy should not be linked, in that case. That I'll take care of, as it's clearly not a revert.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not agreed to any removal of that link. Manufactured controversy should most certainly be linked and you haven't presented a single reason for removing it. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) And you've got them reversed, at least according to the body. Quotes there are "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal" and "manufactured controversy".  Now that would be a trivial objection, though.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (back to the point). You don't need to agree.  Because of the 1RR rule, you can't revert it, though, although a complete rewrite would probably make more sense, anyway.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "reversed" so you're mistaken. It is properly attributed in the lead and the link was appropriate.  If you are inferring that the lead section must be written in the order of the presentation of items in a single section, that's ridiculous, and it sounds like that is what you are saying.  Care to explain why you wrote in the edit summary "per talk"?  Do you understand that when you unilateral agree to your own proposal that is not "per talk", but "per Arthur Rubin"?  I haven't a clue why you removed the link, but I suspect you are wasting my valuable editing time with nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please fix the body, if my quotes are incorrect. You seem unable to edit the body of this article, only to edit the lede.  However, I've reverted my unlinking, although there really is no reason for it to be linked.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea you had such an extraordinary sense of humor! Well, Arthur, everytime I try to edit this article, whether it is the lead or the body, you revert my edits and bog me down on the talk page with nonsense.  I have not only edited the body, many, many times, but I've asked and requested help from you and others with expanding the reporting section and rewriting others.  Any chance you'll actually help out? Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tags
I'm not sure the specific neutrality tag in the lede is necessary, as the article has an overall neutrality tag. The rest of the removals are due to Virditas's unique interpretation of the sourced material in the text, and should not be done without a clear consensus. Alternatively, the offending statements should be removed. There was no consensus that V's interpretation was clear or warranted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Arthur. Article still needs work! -- and has the problems mentioned above, in Talk. Note that mention of editors names in subheads is discouraged. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin and Tillman appear to both misunderstand the relevant policies and guidelines and the use of maintenance tags. I do not see any justification for the current use of tags that Tillman added back into the article and furthermore, I expect an explanation here, in this section, explaining why Tillman added them back.  What I see here is a misuse of the maintenance tag system in order to hold the article hostage to a minority, fringe POV that is not supported by the mainstream sources.  In other words, the so-called "dispute" that Arthur Rubin and Tillman claim they see, does not in fact exist.  This continuing misuse of maintenance tags to push a POV is not acceptable practice and I will remove them again in 24 hours if an adequate explanation for their use is not offered. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'm confused as to where the discussion is about the multiple tags you have just restored into the article. Is the problem that you want to add Richard A. Muller's article Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change? or do you want to globalize the media coverage section per my suggestion of 19 June 2011? Perhaps you want more information on the ICO ruling, or is it that you've changed you mind about holding off a bit longer on Wallis's arrest? It is not possible to engage in realistic discussion unless you are more specific regarding the current disputes you personally have with the wording of the article with regard to the four sections on this discussion page. --Nigelj (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute Tag 101 - While I haven't explored the tag guidelines in quite some time, it is (was?) recommended that any tag be associated with a clearly delineated talk section established to resolve a specific dispute to consensus agreement. Works pretty well too. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On my part, it's quite simple. The first statement provides an odd POV; it implies that only climate sceptics were those breaking the story in the blogosphere, and that they felt it represented a global warming conspiracy.  Specific sources are needed for both, as the text of the article is not adequate to support the conclusion without further synthesis. I suspect sources exist for the first one, but not for the second.  One could make a case that some people (including climate sceptics) found evidence of a global warming conspiracy, but even that requires further synthesis.  (It's possible that some sources in the article support that, but the present text of the article does not.)
 * The second tagged statement, "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists," is not supported by the text of the article, so a citation is needed. I don't doubt that some journalists raised such concerns, but we don't have evidence in the text of the article, and I, for one, cannot see any possible support for it being a general consensus of journalists.
 * I actually don't see an active discussion on the matter, but I certainly don't see (in the talk page history) a consensus that the text should remain. I think Tillman may have been wrong in reinstating the tags, rather than removing the unsourced material entirely.
 * Probably the best result consistent with the existing sources would be to make the first sentence read:
 * The story first broke with climate sceptics in the blogosphere, with some alleging the correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.[ref][ref]
 * I suspect "most" would be accurate, but is inherently impossible to confirm, and "all" or "almost all" would be just false. However, the followup sentence, "According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics," really says all that needs to be said about the global warming conspiracy.  Appending [2] to support that, in addition to [3], and removing the global warming conspiracy clause entirely from the lede (but leaving it in "See also"), might even be a better resolution.
 * The second tagged sentence just has no source, and would be undue weight in the lede if it did have a source, so should be removed.
 * I'm probably not going to make either change, because of the 1RR restriction, but a sensible editor, who has not yet edited today, would be welcome to do so. On second thought, only Tillman had a revert.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reduce your "wall of text" down to half of its size and separate your points by bullets and signature so that I may directly target each and every claim you've made without having my points lost in your wall of text. I can address each and every one of your claims, but I know you will engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you did before, so I want it to be very clear that your claims have been addressed and the dispute has been resolved.  As it stands, you are ignoring the sources in use and making bad edits, including removing properly summarized content per WP:LEAD that is already sourced in the body.  If you don't refactor, I will refactor your comments for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, since you are unable to reasonably refactor your comment into a brief statement that illustrates your concerns, in order to quickly work towards resolution, I will do it for you. In summary, the reason you support a variety of maintenance tags in this article boils down to the fact that you personally dispute (without any sources supporting your position) the following factual statements:



In addition to your personal dispute (sans sources) over the two statements listed above you made a recent edit that removed the term "global warming conspiracy" from statement 1 and placed it in a see also section. Your edit is against best practice. On Wikipedia, we move links from the see also section into the body of an article. In any case, your reasons for supporting maintenance tags and removing and changing factual information is not supported by the sources. Statement 1 is still fully sourced in this version of the article prior to your most recent edit, and contains many more supporting sources throughout the article. It is an established fact that the story first broke in the blogosphere (Hickman & Randerson 2009; Epstein et al. 2011;) with climate sceptics alleging that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy. (Efstathiou & Morales 2009; Somaiya 2010; and about a dozen other reliable sources all previously offered in the archives) Statement 2 is a summary of the media reception section, and is fully sourced. (NYT 2010; Begley 2010; Brainard 2010a; Brainard 2010b; Conason 2010; Brainard received secondary source coverage in Conason and in issue 14 of Earth Island Journal for Autumn 2010; Non-journalists, such as Weart raises the same concerns in Freedman 2009, as does publicist Royce in Häne & Strebel 2010)

In conclusion, I don't see any valid dispute here, and I can show comment after comment, thread after thread, diff after diff of Mr. Rubin acknowledging these sources in the talk page archives, but continuing to ignore them, making up excuse after excuse. Seen in this light, Mr. Rubin's repeated claims that these statements are "odd" or "unsourced" are a documented case of disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and deserving of sanction. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The first disputed clause wasn't sourced as a clause, although a carefully written separate sentence might be justified by the sources given. I don't consider the separate statement necessary, as specific accusations of a conspiracy are contained in the next sentence.  Perhaps a simple change from "scientists manipulating" to "scientists conspiring to manipulate" would resolve the concerns of those who want "conspire" in the lede.
 * As for "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists", that doesn't appear in the body. Even if the two clauses (separated by "while") were be sourced in the body, the connection would also require a source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, you have not shown how the "clause" is disputed in any way, nor have you looked at a single reference. Showing up here and saying "I dispute this" isn't helpful and doesn't improve the encyclopedia.  You claimed that the first statement represents an "odd POV" which means you don't like it.  You then said "it implies that only climate sceptics were those breaking the story in the blogosphere, and that they felt it represented a global warming conspiracacy" which doesn't mean anything at all.  The sources overwhelmingly support the statement, but you removed it because it is at odds with your fringe POV.  That is not acceptable.


 * As for the second statement, your comments disputing it sound like the response was written by a random word generator. The "two clauses" as you refer to them, explicitly summarize the main points of the media reception section, and the "connection" as you put it, is fully sourced as well. Arthur, have you read a single source in this article?  Do you even know the name of this article?  I'm going to restore the first statement and the edits you removed because they are supported by the sources cited and not a single thing about them is disputed.  However, I'm going to modify the second statement to bring it more inline with the media reception section. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Rubin, can you explain why you reverted me in your latest edit?. Your edit summary does not make any sense. I just provided you with the sources that you claim don't exist. Did you read them? They are already in the article and the lead summarizes the media section. I've named them for you above, with the last name and year of publication. I've also provided additional sources that support the material. Can you please explain why you reverted my edits after your request for sources was fulfilled? I also don't understand why this article has maintenance tags in the header. Looking at the page history, you appear to have made a series of blanket reverts over and over again for the past several months for no known reason. Could you please explain your behavior here? While you are at it, could you also provide good sources supporting your view of this dispute? As you have been reminded here in the past, we don't edit articles based on our personal beliefs or POV. We edit based on the sources. I should not have to tell someone who had been here since 2005, nor an admin for that matter, that ignoring a discussion and continuing to blanket revert with false edit summaries and misleading edits (as Nigel observes below) is extremely bizarre. Viriditas (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "sources" do not support the statements as given without some WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * The first set of sources can be said to support (1) That the leaks were first discussed on climate sceptic blogs, which I consider reasonably close to discussed by climate sceptics in the blogosphere. (2)  (Some) sceptics considered them evidence of conspiracy.  Only one of the 3 sources you provided matched our definition of global warming conspiracy.  However, the next sentence specified the conspiracy more precisely than even "global warming conspiracy"; that "the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics".
 * Even if you believe the statement about the global warming conspiracy to be sourced, it's not necessary.
 * As for the second, that's a partial summary of the second half of the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Media reception" section, except that he's not a "journalist". (The rest of the first paragraph was also summarized in the lede.)  There are no other comments in the "Media reception" section about lack of coverage of the "exoneration", and no comments outside of the first paragraph which relate to "sensationalism".  Your version of the lede makes no mention of "the climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause" and  "raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere".
 * The lede should summarize the article, not selected paragraphs of the article.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Rubin, I'm afraid your comments are not acceptable. First, you claim the content is not sourced, even though we have had this discussion many times and you've been provided with the sources here and in the article. At that point, you move the goal posts and say that even if is sourced, it isn't necessary, falling back to you old nonsensical statements.  As you have been reminded, we write from the sources, not based on what you personally think is necessary. You then claim that the term "global warming conspiracy" means something different.  When it is pointed out that there is zero evidence for your claim, and the sources clearly call it one and the same, you then fall back on claiming it is unsourced again.  There appears to be either a serious competency issue on your end or a deliberate pattern of obfuscation, distortion, and deception.  You've been repeatedly asked to review the sources, yet you refuse. I suppose I will once again have to quote them word for word for you in this section. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still no evidence for global warming conspiracy in the references you've given. However, even if there were evidence, it's not necessary, as the detailed conspiracy is given with specific references in the next sentence, so a rational person who really wants global warming conspiracy shouldn't object to my revision.
 * And, I suppose, Tillman and I were wrong to tag "Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists" as requiring a citation; it's merely undue weight. I suppose, to be fair, the preceding sentence should also be removed, as also summarizing a selected part of the article.  If we are going summarize a section of the article, we should summarize the entire section.
 * I was going to say that your arguments were nonsense, but they merely require nonstandard interpretations of the guidelines. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestions of Nigelj below (and my original recommendation above) I will respond in subsections devoted to each issue. Viriditas (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Global warming conspiracy
Section in progress


 * 1) The story first broke in the blogosphere, with climate sceptics alleging that the email correspondence was evidence of a global warming conspiracy.

Promotion of early sensationalised allegations while minimizing later coverage

 * 1) Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations while also minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists

This statement currently refers to concerns raised by journalist Curtis Brainard at CJR and journalist Howard Kurtz at CNN as they appear in the media reception section of this article. There are also additional sources that can be added: Brainard's concerns are also covered in the secondary source, Earth Island Journal (Autumn 2010). Coverage of the same concerns raised by Brainard and Kurtz were published in an article by journalist David R. Baker in the San Francisco Chronicle and by political journalist Joe Conason in Salon. Journalist Sharon Begley talked about the implications of the concerns, while Swiss journalists Justin Häne and Etienne Strebel published straight observations by Bill Royce mirroring the same concerns raised by Brainard, Kurtz, Baker, and Conason. Viriditas (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The mainstream media is either bemoaning the alleged hacking, or beating itself up for "sensationalizing" the scandal. This is pretty typical of what coverage has been all along. The actual issues raised by the e-mail are apparently too trivial to bother with. Kauffner (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have separated your comment from the above section as it does not address the topic. To recap, Arthur Rubin claims the material he removed was unsourced. I have shown in the above, that it was in fact sourced all along and more sources can be found supporting it.  I am awaiting Arthur Rubin's reply on this matter as intend  to restore it to the lead as a significant summary of concerns raised by journalists and other commentators. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, there are adequate references for the second clause ("minimizing later coverage exonerating the scientists"), and the general connection, but not for the first clause ("Journalists raised concerns about the media's role in promoting early sensationalised allegations") there is only marginal support for "journalists", and no support for "sensationalised". I apologize for not noticing the parts of the last paragraph of the section which present the same comments as parts of the first paragraph.  Paragraphs describing similar views should be adjacent.  There are also undue considerations, as the second paragraph of the section is given no weight in the lede, and the third paragraph little weight.  But I was wrong to say the statement was not substantially supported in the text of the article.
 * Arthur, as myself and others have reminded you, we aren't interested in your "thinking about it". We are interested in what the sources say and how we best represent them.  Your continual moving of the goal posts tells me you don't have a valid reason for removing this or any other material.  Again, we go with the sources, not what you think about the topic.  What do the sources say?  Please answer that question. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You've now properly edited the section to match the lede. As the sources you removed arguably do not belong in that section, the sentence appears to meet Wikipedia guidelines.  Although I'm convinced that you are (probably unconsciously) selecting only sources which support your point of view as to what actually happened, there is no longer an anomaly as to that sentence.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Header tags
The additions of the POV tag in April 2011 and disputed tag in May 2011 are not related to the specific tagged sections in the lede, and were never resolved. If the tags are removed, so should the disputed material. Now, I don't remember exactly what the disputed material was, but it covered most of the lede. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, are you admitting that you've been adding back the maintenance tags over the last few days for no reason at all? If you can't defend the use of the maintenance tags, then please do not add them.  Your comment that the maintenance tags aren't related to the sections in the lede is more of your absurd goal post moving.  In this thread, you responded at 22:50, 19 July directly to JakeInJoisey who requested a discussion about the maintenance tags.  You gave your reasons, and now, you are moving the goal posts again saying that those reason had nothing to do with the tagging?  I have to ask, are there multiple people using the "Arthur Rubin" account?  Because, you obviously aren't paying attention to what you are writing. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The header tags were about different issues than the individual tags in the lede. You've justified most of the second disputed section in the lede, but none of the first.  I'll have to research further the concerns which led to the header tags, but the concerns were only resolved in your opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The factual accuracy and integrity of the sources is sound. You haven't disputed a single thing.  When I have time, I would be happy to hold your hand and show you, but considering I've done this already in previous discussions only to have you show up here and say IDIDNTHEARTHAT tells me you are wasting my time.  If you can't provide a single reason justifying the maintenance tags, then they get removed. They don't get added because you think you might be able to invent a reason given enough time. This is beyond ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read through the April-May discussions; Alex made some POV claims which were supported by a few editors, and only opposed by V. However, as I'm not sure the same POV claims still apply, I'm not going to restore the tags to the header.  On the other hand, if Pete or Alex is willing to provide evidence that the same claims still apply, I would oppose removal of the tags.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that is not how we use maintenance tags. You have now admitted several times that you don't know why the maintenance tags are in the article and yet you keep adding them in the hopes that you can discover their purpose.  If you cannot provide a reason, then the tags must be removed.  We don't edit by proxy for unexplained reasons or for reasons that have yet to be explained.  Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing edit summary
Could someone explain this edit to me? It appears from the edit summary that some disputed material, along with tags, is being removed in the middle of a discussion about the material and the tags (going on above). However, when you look at the edit, the sentences 'The story first broke with climate sceptics in the blogosphere. According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics' have been rearranged, but not removed, and the tags that follow, {POV-statement|date=June 2011}{Syn|date=June 2011}, remain. Further down, the sentence 'According to sceptics, the emails showed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics', which was not tagged, has been removed. A third sentence and its tags were removed. Aren't there rules about edit summaries that say one thing accompanying edits that also do others? Are there guidelines about adding dispute tags, starting discussions, and not moving the goalposts around by altering and removing the disputed text soon after the discussion starts? I only ask because I am finding the logic in this increasingly hard to follow, and I am trying to follow it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I removed the tags in question a few minutes ago. They only relate to global warming conspiracy.  The "wall of text" reference, in addition to not supporting the statement, was not written in a form I expected.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that an answer to the question asked by Nigelj? From where I stand, you made up a bunch of nonsense, invented an edit summary, and made edits that had nothing to do with anything but supported your own personal POV. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Climate skeptic at one time redirected to Climate change denial, and currently redirects to Global warming controversy. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That happens to be misleading. Climate skeptic redirected, for a short period of time, to Climate change denial, and currently redirects to the relatively stable Global warming controversy, with some supporting List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * List of climate skeptics currently redirects to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Move forward
I think we should deal with sentences and passages one at a time, not three at a time. For each disputed part, there should be a new section. People should quote from the most relevant source or two, not just list them, ten or twelve at a time, by author and date (that's too much for mere mortals to read to justify one sentence). Then we can all discuss weight and relevance, once the integrity of the text has been publicly verified here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I will do that above. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of maintance tags
Arthur Rubin has once again placed a maintenance tag on this article without using the talk page. The template instructions (On the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag.) and the template itself (Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.) clearly require, as with all maintenance templates, that the user discuss their rationale on the talk page. Per template instructions and best practice, I have repeatedly asked Arthur Rubin to use the talk page whenever he adds a maintenance tag. JakeInJoisey also recently reiterated this point and Arthur Rubin responded to it, indicating that Arthur Rubin has read and understood best practices. Even so, Arthur Rubin has now added a content tag for no known reason. It appears once again, that Arthur Rubin is deliberately disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll provide more detailed information in a bit, but you've violated WP:BRD, by reverting my reversion of your modifications in the guise of "copyediting", and we had a consensus that "hacked" could only be referenced by sources with real knowledge, which means only the police reports, as using UEA would be a violation of WP:SPS. Unless you want to provide evidence that the consensus has changed, your edit adding "hacked" (twice) to the lede is a violation of that consensus.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't rely on primary sources like police reports to write Wikipedia articles, so you're mistaken. The vast majority of secondary sources refer to this as a hacking and it's not in any serious dispute by anyone. If you can't provide a simple rationale for your use of the template (per template instructions) then you have no business adding it. You've been repeatedly told to use the talk page to discuss your edits. I don't have to wait hours to days for you to make something up. What part of "on the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag" isn't making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the rationale for the tag?
You said at 08:32, 24 July 2011 that you would give more detailed information, but you have not. I think it is clear that the only reason you placed this tag was to edit war. Please explain why you added this tag or I will remove it. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rationale is the three sections below. You have made unjustified edits, or edits against consensus, in too many places for me to adjust without probably violating 1RR accidentally.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Arthur, we make edits based on the sources, not on what an editor said a year ago in an archived discussion. Is any of this making sense to you?  If you have current and reliable sources to offer, please provide them.  I'm ready and willing to look at them.  But, you need to understand, we don't write articles based on what Wikipedia editors think; we write based on the sources, primarily secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, but there was a consensus that certain types of "reliable" sources were not reliable for the purpose of "hacked" vs. "leaked". That consenus does not automatically change because of new sources.  As for the rest of your wall of text replies to my concerns, your interpretation of many of the sources does not agree with mine.  I wouldn't go so far as to say that your interpretation is necessarily WP:OR, but you have not provided sources for that interpretation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To Viriditas: I believe that Arthur Rubin has this page on his watchlist. (Correct me if I am wrong, Arthur.) Therefor it is unnecessary for you to put "Talkback" templates on Arthur's talk page, and impolite given that he banned you from his talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To JRSpriggs: As long as Arthur Rubin continues to post on my talk page then he will receive notices from me on his talk page. Up until his last edit to my talk page, I have respected his wishes.  However, hypocrisy will not be tolerated. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Nigelj, I opened separate sections for each dispute. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What dispute? You haven't expressed any dispute based on any sources.  You just keep replying with "I don't like it because I think the facts are different, but by the way, I don't have any sources to support my personal opinion".  That's not a dispute, that's disruptive editing.  Stop it. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not support your point of view. Please read them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What POV might that be, Arthur? Which sources are you referring to here? Notice, you will never give specifics because there are none.  All you are doing is holding this article hostage to your discredited POV which is not supported by the sources.  The page history shows that you continue to edit this article based not on the sources, but on your POV.  Your latest edits removed an explanation of the CRU from the lead for no reason whatsoever, an explanation that is provided for our readers not for our editors.  You have not used the talk page to explain your edits, once again. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science
The BBC Trust - Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science incorporates an independent report by Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Genetics at University College London. From p. 66 onwards this discusses reporting on global warming, and p. 71 specifically describes discussion related to the CRU email controversy. The appendix p. 75 onwards has a detailed analysis of reporting of the Muir Russell findings. A news report in the Graun covers some more general reactions to the review. . . dave souza, talk 11:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a big deal for the BBC. I don't know whether we still have a section on analyses of the media coverage, but I know we did about a year ago when the first critiques started to spill out. It became quite a hot section for a while. The worst of the bad actors have now been removed so perhaps now we can restore, clean up, augment, or otherwise improve that section. --TS 03:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. This is clearly a contentious one, and the proposed title is certainly controversial, with respect to NPOV in particular. Therefore, we're going to need something closer to a consensus in order to move to it. The interpretations of WP:AT vary widely across the sample of Wikipedians commenting here, and we're catching some of the ongoing controversy of how that policy should be applied. The position that WP:AT is a rule-that-must-be-followed does not enjoy consensus support, as evidenced by the amout of static and heat generated in discussions such as this one, and at WT:AT. Without a firm rule to fall back on, there's not a strong case to move the article. Since a lot of what we're seeing here is smoke from another fire, I would recommend to anyone wishing to continue that they pursue a content RFC... at WP:AT. It would be nice to settle these interpretation issues more than they currently are settled. Otherwise, further levels of dispute resolution will have to occur. - GTBacchus(talk) 18:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy → Climategate – The obviously contrived title of this article contradicts consensus as reflected in policy more than any other title I've ever seen. I presume it has been argued that "Climategate" is non-neutral, but there is no basis in consensus as reflected in policy for avoiding words in titles simply because they're non-neutral. As explained at WP:POVTITLE, being neutral in deciding titles simply means following usage in reliable sources. When we consider the principal naming criteria,

"Climategate" beats "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" on every single point, hands down, including precision, since the current title is much more precise than necessary (Climategate is unambiguous). This title essentially substitutes WP:AT with WP:JDLI, and I wouldn't really care, except it's used as an example to justify other moves contrary to policy. For that reason alone, this needs to be fixed. Please. Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not again! Most respectable usage puts this blogospheric term in inverted commas, but my understanding is that "Climategate" goes against WP:TITLEFORMAT policy as well as pandering to fringe views of science. . .dave souza, talk 17:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) fmt and correct self 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have not been involved before, and this is so egregious and blatant it has negative ramifications on the titling of other articles. Perhaps usage in sources has changed as the term has gained more acceptance over time? I don't see any use of quotes, in recent (2011) references at google scholar .  The NY Times doesn't seem to use that either  .  Same with The Register. . Even if some or even many sources put it in quotes, it's obviously not universal, nor does it seem close enough to universal to require us to also put it in quotes, or avoid using it without quotes, especially not in order to favor the bizarre and contrived current title that so blatantly conflicts with policy and consensus, thus creating such a terrible precedent (despite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * dave souza when you say "respectable"? do you mean use in "reliable sources"? If so what is the source for that statement? If you have done a survey, what did you use for the survey? I did a quick google search on Climategate site:gov and it does not support you hypothesis. -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was any precision in this choice of title, there would be several clear analogies to be drawn between the Climategate events and outcomes, and those known as Watergate. There are none. --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose move -- current title was product of hard-fought consensus. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus changes. What consensus/policy based reasons are there for opposing it today? Do you have any rebuttal to the support argument presented in the nomination?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the present arguments were all rebutted in past discussions. Surely you've read them before dredging this up again? Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to the nominator - these issues appear to have been addressed and resolved in past discussions. Please explain which of the points raised in previous discussions you accept, and which ones you reject, and why. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the latest RM discussion prior to this one? When you say "these issues" and "the present arguments were all rebutted" (above), which "issues" and "present arguments" do you mean?   Anyway, I see several arguments at that RM discussion based on WP:POVTITLE, but no rebuttals. There is only one acknowledgement of it, but it's dismissed based on the belief that unqualified climategate is not used by a majority of RS (a rebuttal I'd be happy to address if anyone wishes to present it here). Anyway, as noted above, usage appears to have changed, with sources using climategate without quotes much more commonly now than when it was a neologism.  I don't see any arguments based on comparing the two titles per the principal naming criteria as I presented above, much less a rebuttal of that, so I really don't know what you're talking about.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to address the many past discussions, all of which have resulted in a consensus to stay with this title? But despite your unwillingness to address those discussions, you expect me to waste time rebutting these same tired old points? In other words, your time matters, but no one else's does? It's clear from your nomination that you have proposed this move simply to prove a WP:POINT: except it's used as an example to justify other moves contrary to policy. B2C, you have a long history of trying to force article titles to adhere to your vision a policy - a vision that the community has repeatedly rejected. Trying to rename this article because you find it inconvenient in other debates sounds like a bad faith nomination. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you cannot be bothered to address the many past discussions, all of which have resulted in a consensus to stay with this title? But despite your unwillingness to address those discussions, you expect me to waste time rebutting these same tired old points? In other words, your time matters, but no one else's does? It's clear from your nomination that you have proposed this move simply to prove a WP:POINT: except it's used as an example to justify other moves contrary to policy. B2C, you have a long history of trying to force article titles to adhere to your vision a policy - a vision that the community has repeatedly rejected. Trying to rename this article because you find it inconvenient in other debates sounds like a bad faith nomination. Guettarda (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * point of order It's been more than 6 months since the last request which had a discretionary sanction of no further discussion of the article title change for six months. Therefore, we can't just hat this as beating an equine exhibiting signs incompatible with life.  Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again
 * That said, oppose requested move, as proposed title is non-neutral and implies scandal where pretty much none as been shown to exist by subsequent inquiries. It's also debatable under WP:COMMONNAME whether Climategate vs "Climategate" or so-called "climategate" is the most common usage.  The current title is an appropriate and neutral compromise with a redirect from the pov-laden title.  Sailsbystars (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we're following common usage, we are being neutral, per WP:POVTITLE. The distinction between X and "X" is moot since both are commonly used and we don't quote other terms in our titles that are commonly quoted in sources.  Similarly, whether "gate" implies scandal is not for us to judge or take into account in deciding whether to use it for our title - our obligation, under neutrality, is to simply follow the lead set by sources.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Climategate" gets 758 hits on Google books, compared to 1 for this title. Kauffner (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perusing the results, I see that very few books that reference climategate put it in quotes. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Apart from the grandaddy of them all, we avoid naming articles after the very old and very tired "-gate" neologism. The very nature of the "-gate" shtick implies that a cover-up or a deception took place, so we are not going to use a term that is inherently NPOV-violating to name an article.  In this specific case, this is a perennial request that the nominator should have had the good sense to check the archives first to see how many times it has been soundly defeated.  Repetitive nominations becomes tendentious at some point, and editors should me mindful of the discretionary sanctions that can be imposed for such behavior. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What consensus or policy based reason is there to avoid using "a term that is inherently NPOV-violating to name an article"? Do you not realize that WP:POVTITLE says the exact opposite?


 * Does anyone have a rebuttal to this explanation about what neutrality means with regard to deciding article titles? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is, we're not going to use any form of -gate to name an article. It is a dumb, sensationalized, overhyped, drive-by media fixation to slap the fucking on every micro or massive controversy-of-the-day.  This is an encyclopedia, not TMZ, and we should strive for professionalism.  You can click through the entire list at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, and I think you will find that all or very nearly all of those links are redirect to a sensible name.  This is a long-standing Wikipedia precedent to not name articles in this fashion. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was not aware of that.  Very interesting.  This undocumented practice contradicts NPOV in general and WP:POVTITLE in particular (explanation quoted above if you don't understand how or why), but it does establish a precedent for this title, except that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Long-standing or not, I, for one, find the policy-contradicting gate-phobic practice to be, well, stupid.  Usage of climategate is established in scholarly journals, books, newspapers and magazines.   To not use it here is just plain silly, as well as contrary to policy.  Now I'm even more convinced this title needs to change.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL has always seemed like the more common-sense approach, and seeing how Climategate and all the other -gates are redirects that get the reader to the article anyways, all of this just seems a little pedantic, honestly. This is a battle you're going to lose, that's just how it will play out from here on out, so how much time you wish to sink into it is entirely upto you. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL is part of the style manual, not policy, and addresses article content, not article titles. How we treat titles is addressed at WP:AT (including WP:POVTITLE - you still haven't addressed that explanation regarding titles and neutrality) and WP:D. I've looked at the list of "-gates" and most are different from this one. Most are much more obscure and are not nearly as commonly used in reliable sources as is climategate, and many have much more natural alternatives commonly used in RS, like Monicagate redirects to Lewinsky scandal. The argument about "redirects that get the reader to the article anyways" is meaningless since it can be used to oppose any move proposal. Please don't make this personal (as in, "you're going to lose").  This isn't about me or anyone else winning or losing - it's about improving the encyclopedia, and that includes deciding titles based on consensus as reflected in policy, and purging it of articles at contrived titles when names commonly used in RS can be used. Is there anything that will convince you, or are you emotionally attached to a certain outcome here?   --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this has been flogged to death. Most mainstream sources use the term 'climategate' indirectly, either in quotes or with qualifiers like 'so-called', 'referred to as...', etc. The term is contested and definitely not NPOV. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not true that most mainstream soruces use the climategate indirectly, at least not any more. Did you even read this discussion?  We have links from newspapers, books, and scholarly journals contradicting this point.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. And what is the source for your assertion? A review by a reliable third-party source? Or simply a few cherry-picked examples? Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You would know the source of the assertion if you had read the discussion and clicked on the links. I'm not going to repeat.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose because it's just cruel to that poor dead horse. Tell you what, when you get Anthony Weiner sexting scandal changed to Weinergate and Killian documents controversy changed to Rathergate, then I'll sign on. Gamaliel (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources used "weinergate" and "rathergate" about as commonly to refer to those respective controversies as they use "climategate" to refer to this one, that would be a reasonable comparison. As far as I know, that's not the case.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To begin with, the nominator admits that he is only nominating this article because he finds it inconvenient in other debates. Given his history, it sounds like a WP:POINTy nomination. The issue with the name "climategate" isn't simply that it's non-neutral. More importantly, it's a smear. Using that name perpetuates that smear. The name connects it with so-called "-gate scandals", when in fact it would only be comparable to Watergate if the DNC had staged the break-in and used it to smear Nixon. Using the name perpetuates a lie, one that casts aspersions on the professional capabilities and academic integrity of living people. We could never make claims like that in an article, we could never allude to things like that in an article. We would never entitle an article about a living person "XYZ (embezzler)", but we most certainly could not do it if said person had been found innocent of the alleged crime. Consider the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article. Sherrod was falsely portrayed as a racist, was forced to resign from her job, and subject to all sorts of scathing attacks...based on a misleadingly edited tape. We would never, ever, use "racist" to disambiguate an article about Sherrod, no matter how many rightwing bloggers used the term because (a) it's false, and (b) it would be a terrible BLP violation. It's no different here. Implicit in calling this "climategate" is the idea that (a) there was a "-gate scandal" and (b) that the scandal was about the conduct of climate science. Both of these are, of course, untrue. By calling this "climategate" we become active participants in the smear. And, most clearly, is a policy violation. Now, obviously, there is also the secondary issue of the use of quotes. By using quotes or by adding some otherwise descriptive terminology, reliable news sources have largely distanced themselves from the smear. Stop counting Google hits and look at the actual usage. There's all sorts of nuance around the troubling issue of how to refer to this. Arguments that ignore this nuance are, at best, meaningless, synthesis-by-search-engine. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, for someone who objected to this proposal because these arguments "were all rebutted in past discussions", you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding about what the objections are to the current title. To start, you say: "the nominator admits that he is only nominating this article because he finds it inconvenient in other debates". False.  That's not what I said, and, more importantly, it's not true.  There are many reasons to move  this title as proposed, some are more important than others.  Several of the reasons are each important enough alone to justify this move.  Among those reasons, the one that cause me to learn about this mess and thus submit this proposal, is the harm caused by the precedent effect of this title because it contradicts policy as explained in the nom.  But if I happened upon it without knowing about the precedent, I would probably still submit this proposal, basically because it contradicts policy. Do you have any RS to support your opinion that climategate is "smear"?  Or is that just your personal opinion? Do you not understand that when we choose titles based on how sources refer to the topic, we are relying on the neutrality judgment of the sources?  If we then apply our own neutrality judgment, like by choosing not to use a term due to "neutrality (or smear) concerns", when that's the term used most commonly by RS, we are not being neutral with respect to relying on the neutrality judgment of the sources... that's an NPOV violation. The Sherrod/racist example would only be relevant here if RS referred to Sherrod as a racist about as commonly, relative to referring to the respective topic with others names/terms, as RS refer to this topic as climategate.  They don't, of course. I've also said nothing about anything depending on google counts; of course that doesn't prevent you from saying I'm doing that.  WTF?   When I search for "climategate" at google Scholar (2011) and google books, and look at the results, the use of quotes is only in a small minority of the sources.  The most common name used to refer to this topic in RS is clearly climategate, without quotes.  Maybe quotes were more commonly used a few years ago, but no longer. None of the objections here are consistent with consensus as reflected in policy.  Whether you realize that or not, hopefully the closing admin will.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The topic of the article 'is' climategate - that's how everyone finds it - and the fact that climategate isn't in the title weirdly skews the article itself. Yeah, it's gotten a lot better than when "hacking incident" was in the title, but what we've got is still kind of a mess. Climategate includes discussion of things that 'weren't emails' (e.g., HARRY_READ_ME.txt and the data dirs) so "email controversy" is too specific. Whatever this thing we're talking about is, it's not really *about* email and it's *got* a name; we should use it. "Climategate" is natural, concise, and recognizable. --Blogjack (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer evidence-based discussions rather than those rooted in alternative realities constructed in the mind. For evidence that the term "climategate" was not "natural" as you claim, please see Norton 2010.  "Climategate" is an artificial term deliberately and purposefully coined to attack climate science and scientists in coordination with an illegal hacking of their university server and release of stolen emails, played out in the media with the usual Fox effect presented as a manufactured controversy that six investigations determined was nothing but smoke and mirrors.  Renaming this article would be akin to participating as a partner in crime, metaphorically speaking.  We aren't in the business of helping conspiracy theorists spread their seed.  Of course, we could change the focus of this article and create climategate conspiracy theory which I have previously suggested, and focus only on the  global warming conspiracy claims of the climate change denial movement.  This is not a POV fork.  If we had two articles, one focused on the claims of the climate change denialists, and another on the incident, the people involved, and the investigations, we could avoid lumping both subjects into the "climategate" meme which was authored by only one side.  It would also give us more room to flesh out the climategate conspiracy theory and to explore it fully and to show how it doesn't hold up when you think it all the way through.  Of course, that idea won't work, because one side will seek to have the other article merged or deleted.  So we are left with dealing with the climategate conspiracy theory in one article about the hacking incident and the investigations. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There no telling how many words and terms that we use in our titles have similar dubious origins. But that's not relevant to us with respect to using them in our titles, for the same reason the dubious (but Twitter-accelerated) origins of climategate should not be relevant to us with respect to using it in our titles: to be neutral, rather than relying on our own neutrality judgement, we rely on the neutrality judgement of RS instead, whenever possible. In the context of deciding titles, that means following usage in RS.  Whether you personally like it or not, the fact is that RS overwhelmingly use climategate to refer to the topic of this article.  When I search for "climategate" at google Scholar (2011) and google books, and look at the results, the use of quotes is only in a small minority of the sources.  The most common name used to refer to this topic in RS is clearly climategate, without quotes.  Maybe quotes were more commonly used a few years ago, but no longer. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, most of the RS that refer to this topic as climategate are also "not in the business of helping conspiracy theorists spread their seed", but that doesn't prevent them from using climategate to refer to this topic. Nor should it for us, if we are to abide by NPOV. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean "let's use the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles". It means going with the best sources about the subject, sources like Science which don't use the term at all.  I think a redirect works just fine.  We'll save the sensationalism for Murdoch's empire, or what's left of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please. So, you're down to straw man arguments already?  Of course NPOV doesn't mean "let's use the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles".  No one is arguing that.  In the context of deciding titles, NPOV means "follow the usage of RS - rely on their neutrality judgment - do not impose your judgement about neutrality into the decision process, even if that results in using what you believe to be 'the most sensationalist terms to name our encyclopedia articles'".  Following usage in RS without regard to your own opinion is exactly what neutrality requires.  See WP:NPOVTITLE - I've also quoted it above, I believe.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with using only one source, like Science, is that their editorial board might be biased (actually, since it's comprised of humans, we know it is biased, like all editorial boards are), and, if it is, that would be reflected in their usage. That's why we look at usage in a wide variety of RS (not tweets, not blogs, but RS, like newspapers, books and scholarly journals). But we, in order to be neutral, to abide by NPOV, we must put aside our own biases and judgments when we do that, and simply follow their usage. If we do that in this case, we get Climategate, not Climatic Research Unit email controversy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't using one source. I've given you one secondary source that disproved your claim, now I'll give you a primary.  Could you explain to me why the Minority Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quite possibly the most vehement climate skeptics in U.S. politics today, released a 34 page report about this subject in February 2010 that did not use the term "climategate" at all, but used the terms "CRU controversy" and "CRU scandal" throughout their report instead?  When we look at secondary source coverage of this report, we see that media outlets like Fox News didn't refer to "climategate" at all either, and the word only appears once in a quote from Inhofe.  Fox referred to "The CRU controversy" as quoted in the report.  Then, when we look across the aisle, we see that CNN didn't use the word "climategate" either.  How many more examples can we find of this, Born2cycle? Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood you. Okay, there are RS that do not use the term to refer to this topic - there is no denying that.  But there are many RS that do use it - we can't deny that either. I presume that we all understand that to maximize compliance with neutrality in deciding how to title any article about a topic to which sources refer, we need to look at enough of the sources to reasonably ascertain what term or name is used most often -- more often than any other -- to refer to the topic, and use that.  If we do that, we're completely unbiased in the title decision process, because we're totally avoiding imposing our own judgment about what is or isn't neutral or appropriate for whatever reason, and simply following the sources.  Therefore, if we do anything other than that, we're imposing our own bias about what is or is not neutral, and therefore compromising neutrality.  This is what WP:POVTITLE explains, and, frankly, it's common sense. As and aside, and perhaps this is why it's confusing, it's true that we have many articles in WP about topicsthat are "artificial" - they are unique to WP and don't have counterparts in sources -  topics like List of Countries.  For articles about those "artificial" topics we have to invent what we call descriptive titles since we don't have sources we can follow, and so we are compelled to use our own best judgement about neutrality in deciding what those titles are.  That's a compromise in neutrality as compared to simply following usage in RS, but it's a necessary compromise since we don't have the option to follow usage in RS for these artificial topics. But the topic of this article is not artificial; there is no need to compromise neutrality by inventing a title instead of following usage in RS.  It's a real topic covered and referenced in sources, so we can remain totally neutral by not using our own judgement at all, because we can rely entirely on the judgment of the sources, by simply using whatever term or name RS use most often to refer to this topic, and using that for our title. Therefore, the main question before us, if our goal is to be neutral in deciding the title, is the same as for any other article about a topic that is covered in the sources - what is the name or term used most often to refer to this topic in RS?.  In other words... For us, more specifically: Is it climategate?  If not climategate, what is it? But to go down the path of inventing a new title clearly used less often (if at all) by RS is compromising neutrality when there is no reason to do so, not to mention all the other compromises that are unnecessarily made with regard to our principal naming criteria when we invent a new title rather than follow usage in sources.  Yet that's exactly what was done to come up with the current title, and why I say I've never encountered a worse title, with regard to neutrality as well as the naming criteria, in WP.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article title precisely identifies the subject per the sources. For another  example, the March 2010 report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee called their report "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia". Secondary sources covering the release of this report, a report which vindicated the scientists, did not use the term "climategate" at all, such as The Sydney Morning Herald, the New Zealand Herald, The Australian, The Telegraph, and The Times.  Even CBS News didn't use it in the news story, except to refer to a reader poll.  And, before the investigation began, you'll see that the term wasn't even used by the BBC .  That's a very small sample of secondary sources covering one of six major reports.  So one can see that this title was not "invented" as you claim, but closely matches much of, if not all of, the major news coverage it has received. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that, overall, RS use "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" to refer to this topic more often than they use any other name or term to refer to it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RM pseudo-random break 1

 * Support per my (and others) arguments every other time: "Climategate" is what everyone else calls it. It's silly to maintain the fiction that Wikipedia is somehow exempt from the workings of the English language: things are what people call them. Nuff said. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is "everyone", Tillman? Do you mean experts?  When the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry names their report "The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia" and doesn't use the word "climategate" at all should we take notice?  What about the secondary sources that didn't use the term when they covered the release of the report?  And how about the minority report released by the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which chose to use the words "CRU controversy" and "CRU scandal" instead of "climategate"?  Should we ignore that report and the secondary sources that covered it without using the term "climategate"? Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please reread the Principal Naming Criteria, listed above. The current name doesn't conform to policy. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons that I gave at extreme length in numerous discussions with IDHT-suffering anti-science POV warriors. And I am seriously tired of wikifundamentalists who try to enforce their ridiculous misunderstandings and overinterpretations of policy. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a huge game of Nomic. (Our policies and guidelines are extremely contradictory and only make sense as a basis on which good-faith editors with common sense and a genuine desire to build a free and better alternative to Britannica can come to consensus. Attempts to interpret one policy as absolute law and apply it regardless of whether it makes sense and how many other policies this violates generally lead into widespread chaos. Wikifundamentalism is currently a much bigger threat for Wikipedia than vandalism.) Hans Adler 21:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is a veiled sneer at the arguments I've presented here, but if it is, I'd appreciate it if you would back up these accusations with substance. If you've already rebutted the arguments I've made here, please provide a link, but from what I've reviewed, they've never even been made before, much less rebutted. If, instead, you choose to leave your contribution to this discussion as just this dismissive statement mired in personal preference,  so be it.  I trust the closing admin to discount it accordingly.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There were some formalist attempts at enforcing this non-neutral title, and I don't think yours is substantially different. See talk page archives 29 and 30, for example. (Search for my contributions to see my take on matters and my detailed explanation of the interplay of the various policies and guidelines in this specific case. Policies and guidelines were edited a bit since then, but I think morally everything still applies in the same way, and I am not looking forward to repeating this kind of discussion. At all.) WP:NDESC has been edited since then and the explicit example of Attorneygate (which is a redirect rather than a title, for good reason) was removed. But not because there is anything wrong with the example, but as part of general streamlining and because the principle is of course more general. Hans Adler 22:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can anyone determine the percentage of redirects over at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix? Best practice appears to discourage the use of sensationalistic "-gate" suffixes with a redirect to the precise title. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Best practice is to treat each case independently and follow what sources do for that case. Whether it's 10% or 50% or 99% of those on the list that are referred to more often by some name other than the -gate one is irrelevant to deciding the title for any one of them that is referred to most often in RS by its -gate name.  For any given topic, if we are serious about neutrality, then we should just use whatever the sources use most often to refer to that topic.  Doing anything other than that, including introducing a bias against -gate names in our decision process as a "best practice", is being less neutral.   --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What percentage of articles found in the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix? redirect to another article? And what does that number say about how Wikipedia treats articles with a "-gate" suffix?  If the number (and pattern) of redirects shows that best practice on Wikipedia is to avoid the "-gate" suffix, then shouldn't the article naming policy be updated to reflect best practice?  Policies and guidelines often fall out of sync with community norms and practices, and when they do, they need to be updated. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Don't know.  Nothing.  No, for the reasons I just provided above.  The argument (did you read it?) I presented had nothing to do with policies and guidelines, except that it stems from the neutrality pillar.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't know something, it is often a good idea to try find out the answer. Roughly looking at the list and redirects with pop-ups and scanning it visually, there appears to be a list of ~200 entries, of which 95% or more are redirects.  In other words, best practice dictates that we avoid creating articles with the "-gate" suffix, and for good reasons, many of which have already been explained to you in this thread.  For some reason, you appear to be arguing against best practice.  When that happens, a policy needs to be changed and/or editors need to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my post which addresses all this, timestamp 22:44. If you don't see how it does, let me know.   --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really address it. Best practice is to avoid the use of the "-gate" suffix in article names.  The media will often report a story in a sensationalistic manner, so editors require good judgement when they identify and evaluate reliable sources, and in this case, when they choose an encyclopedic article name.  Looking at the list we see many instances of -gate suffix redirects to "x scandal" and "y controversy" articles.  When we look at the name of this article and compare it to that list, we see that this article name is in accordance with community best practices. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's "best" about this practice. Blindly rejecting names simply due to having a certain suffix is not a best practice, it's a stupid practice, and it's the opposite of being neutral, as it introduces a bias (a bias against the -gate suffix). I've explained how and why above, which I'll reference here instead of copying/pasting; I hope you don't mind.    . If you have any further concerns or questions about this, please let me know. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to have it reversed. It doesn't introduce bias at all, rather it eliminates the possibility of bias.  Please read a bit more about why Safire used the term, how it is used in public discourse, and more importantly, how it was used by climate skeptics to smear living people.  We have plenty of sources that describe the topic as a controversy involving the CRU, so there's no problem here at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand why it may appear to you that I'm the one who has it reversed, but I assure you, you have that reversed. You don't seem to recognize and appreciate that introducing a particular selection criteria -- like avoiding names that end in -gate -- is introducing a bias, and is not neutral.  It's a prejudice.  It's not a prejudice against a certain skin color or a certain sexual preference, but it's a prejudice never-the-less, a prejudice against names that end in -gate, and that's a relevant prejudice in this context of selecting names.  That's not neutrality... neutrality is avoiding  prejudice.  And being indiscriminate about applying your prejudice - by applying it universally to all names which have that characteristic without exception -- makes it no more neutral than any other prejudice applied without exception like that. I mean, you recognize how silly this is: "We're neutral, we don't hire anyone with green eyes."  Well, "We're neutral, we avoid any title with -gate" is exactly as silly.  It's prejudice; it's most certainly not neutral. Neutrality means looking at each individual case on its own merits.  Here it means to treat each case independently and follow what the sources do for that particular case, without prejudice based on suffixes or anything else.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not "prejudice" at all, it is best practice based on evaluating our best sources, and it is substantiated by the fact that almost all instances of "-gate" in article titles redirect to more precise, neutral titles. You can deny the facts, but the facts remain: article naming policy in practice deviates from your interpretation of the policy.  It's also supported by the plethora of sources documenting the history of the suffix and its sensantionalistic, problematic use in the media.  You are on the wrong page. You need to be over at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles arguing that there is a good reason to use the "-gate" in article titles.  If you can't find a reason, then you need to change the policy to reflect best practice.  The evidence shows that the current title of this article reflects best practice and is appropriately titled in the most accurate, neutral, and timely context.  We couldn't ask for more than that, and if Wikipedia is found to adhere to the principles of journalistic ethics more so than the sensationalistic media, then we should pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe prejudice is a bit too strong, but it's certainly a bias: "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation". In any case, it's not neutrality, which is my main point. Do you include all the books and scholarly journals that have been repeatedly cited as sources for the use of "climategate" as being  part of the "sensationalist media"?  Here's the thing, I would not be surprised if you could not find support in RS for usage for most of the other -gate names on that list.  But, for better or for worse, climategate is widely used, more widely than any another term, phrase or name to refer to this topic, and that makes it different, and why all those others on the list are irrelevant.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your conception of "bias" is at odds with how the term is commonly defined and used. Sensationalism is an acknowledged form of editorial bias intended to draw an audience.  We don't do that here.   "Climategate" is a sensationalistic term, as acknowledged by the sources.  Per best practices reflected in WP:SCIRS, science-related articles should "avoid sensationalism, and should follow the relevant research community in according weight to such results."  The results are in: six investigations vindicated the living people involved in this manufactured controversy, so we have no need to rely on a term that smears innocent people.  As we can see from the 100-200 redirects over at list of scandals with "-gate" suffix, best practice is to redirect sensationalistic article titles to the most precise and accurate topic.  The media may very well decide to propagate pet memes like they did with Memogate and Rathergate, but this is Wikipedia. Per our policy on WP:NOTSCANDAL and our guideline on WP:SENSATION, sensationalism should be avoided and editors should be mindful of the sources that they use to support the names of articles they choose to create.  Common sense prevails. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally! Food for thought!  Thank you.  Good points.  I will mull on this.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans, I have demonstrated the strength of my argument by presenting it both in terms of policy and not. To disparage it as "formalist" is fallacious and irrelevant.  Please take just a few minutes and read my last reply to Viriditas, the one that starts with "Sorry, I misunderstood you."   This is the heart of my argument and it hardly refers to policy or rules at all, since that's what you seem to prefer. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE The fundamental issues regarding neutrality in deciding articles is also being discussed here with regard to the title of Female genital mutilation. In fact, I'm presenting the same argument there as I am here: Focusing exclusively on actual usage in reliable sources, without regard to anyone's opinions about reasons and justifications for using one rather than another, is how we establish and maintain neutrality on deciding titles in controversial cases like this one.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. And if anyone thinks I'm blindly supporting B2C, check the history on US settlement naming conventions.  It is CRU, it's not email, and it is primarily about the controversy, rather than the actual documents.  "CRU document release controversy" would be possible, although even more ambiguous.  I do believe that "climatgate" is the only term which the average reader would recognize as referring to this topic.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (faints) --Born2cycle (talk) 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you fainting over? The fact that one of the most reliable ideological supporters of right-wing causes supports your ideological, right-wing cause? 96.25.152.47 (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my ideological right-wing causes like pro-choice, legalize drugs, end the wars yesterday, religion is evil, end corporate welfare, recall Creationist school board members and fire Creationist teachers... shall I go on? The only cause that motivates me here is neutrality and WP:AT.  The reason I fainted is because Arthur agreed with me.  --Born2cycle (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (a) We don't propagate the media's efforts at sensationalising manufactured stories. (b) There's little to compare with Watergate now that more of the facts are known ('the establishment' (the scientists here) did not organise the theft; 'the establishment' (the scientists) were vindicated by all subsequent enquiries, not found to be corrupt). (c) There are clear policies against the use of such a title in cases like this: 'As a CBC News Online column noted in 2001, the term may "suggest unethical behaviour and a cover-up"' (Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: A-I. Taylor & Francis. p. 844. ISBN 9780415259378. See List of scandals with "-gate" suffix) and that would fail WP:BLP among other things in this case. Personally, I preferred the earlier title - Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and would support a move to that. --Nigelj (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of these points -- (a), (b), (c) and the "I preferred" remark -- are relevant to a neutral evaluation of how reliable sources most commonly refer to the topic of this article. If you want to put aside neutrality, and take a position on controversial issues like whether climategate is "sensationalist" and whether it should not be used because it is "sensationalist", and we want to take into account editors personal preferences, I can see how they might come into play, but that is all very contrary to the spirit of WP, and in particular WP:NPOV. Again, as for all article title decisions, I think we need to simply look, through neutral lenses (that is, ignoring controversial considerations like these), at actual usage in reliable sources, and follow that.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to repeat myself once: the term "suggest[s] unethical behaviour and a cover-up". Which lenses are you using? --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A neutral lens, despite my personal atheistic/pro-science/anti-religious views that recognize the devastating impact human activity is having on our environment in general, and climate in particular (not that my personal views matter, but you asked about my lens). As to the quoted statement, how significant is that suggestion of "unethical behavior and cover-up" with respect to whether it is appropriate to use the term when referring to the topic of this article?  To comply with WP:NPOV, don't you think we need to do our best to remain neutral on this controversial question and simply follow actual usage in reliable sources?  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is somewhat of a difficult one for me, I argued tooth and nail for changing the title of 2011 Libyan Uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war instead of 2011 Libyan Conflict. Conflict was by far the most commonly used term in the media at the time (its now about 50/50 between conflict and civil war). But I felt that civil war was a better title because the media seemed to be purposely avoiding calling it a civil war for some reason, and "conflict" seemed to be completely non-descriptive. But after I did this I realized it was probably an error to do it, even if I was somewhat vindicated later. Wikipedia should reflect what is the most commonly used name, otherwise we open up every name to some ridiculous battle of what makes sense/what is neutral rather than what is policy. I accept that how the media names everything "something-gate" is really annoying, but it has become somewhat of a cultural meme since watergate so we shouldn't be too annoyed by that. Plus manufactured Wikipedia names are far more annoying than "something-gates". They're fine for use before something receives a popular name (i.e. when the article was first created), but afterwards they're not acceptable for continued use. I know that for many people "climategate" is itself representative of the attempts of some conservative groups and politicians to refute climate change, but if you're on the political left and opposing the name change you need to consider that the trend you are setting is very short sighted. Imagine if every name was getting opened up to these kinds of debates, think of all those properly named articles which could get re-named to be more neutral or more descriptive, or less politically charged. You many succeed in stopping this RM, but you're not doing yourself any good in the long run, and next time you may find you're on the other side of the equation and getting a wikipedia-contrived name jammed down your throat in the name of neutrality or descriptiveness. If you stop that kind of move here you limit the chances of it happening to some other article in the future. Vietminh (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. You really hit the nail on the head: "I know that for many people "climategate" is itself representative of the attempts of some conservative groups and politicians to refute climate change, but if you're on the political left and opposing the name change you need to consider that the trend you are setting is very short sighted. Imagine if every name was getting opened up to these kinds of debates, think of all those properly named articles which could get re-named to be more neutral or more descriptive, or less politically charged."  Exactly!  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to add this also: Wikipedia is becoming far too politicized and issues are being decided by calculations of political correctness and neutrality which go far outside Wikipedia guidelines and policies. For instance the person who opposed directly above me said "We don't propagate the media's efforts at sensationalising manufactured stories.", without stopping to think that it's not our job to refute them either. Our job is to reflect what is in the sources and not our personal assessments. The sources we cite, the scientists, the scholars, the academics, it is their job to refute what is bad-science or media sensationalism. If they do their jobs correctly, and we do ours correctly (by reflecting what is said) than the goals of all the people who want to see action on climate change will be accomplished. If we don't do our jobs correctly than we give fuel to the flames of all those people who refute climate change not on the science of the phenomenon but on the superficial dialogue which surrounds it. If the scientists, the scholars, and the academics aren't doing their job good enough or fast enough (in your personal calculation) than you can't truly make up for that here, that's for them to do. Vietminh (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:SENSATION - "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting", let alone for choosing a NPOV article title. As I said, "(b) There's little to compare with Watergate now that more of the facts are known". Tabloid scandal mongers propagated the extremist bloggers' meme, without checking any facts first. Now you say we are becoming too politicised by not reinstating that sensationalism into our title? We can clearly see how inappropriate it was to predict the downfall of climate science, analogously to the way Watergate led to the downfall of a US government, but the political and religious extremists live in hope and are forever active around this topic. --Nigelj (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-Random break 2
-- PBS (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – already too much time wasted re-opening this contentious topic. It has been decided; leave it alone.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is that? Besides, if time wasted on contentious topics is really your concern, then you should favor this move and any other proposal based on using the much more objective select the most prevalent usage approach than the let's argue about what's the best one to use approach.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, Requested Moves are decided on policy, not whether a topic is too contentious to debate. Also, most RM's are contentious, if the topic weren't contentious then it would just get moved without a debate (or at least not a drawn out one). Vietminh (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to repeat my point slightly reworded in these terms, many contentious RMs would not be nearly as contentious (if at all) if people would follow NPOV and be neutral with regard to various controversial naming issues -- like whether a given term is non-neutral or too "sensational" or "inappropriate" for some other reason, about which debates are typically pointless and often practically endless -- and instead agree to simply go with the most common usage in reliable sources. I bet that would cut the RM load in half, at least.  --Born2cycle (talk)
 * Climategate already redirects here, and has for a long time. Renaming is unnecessary = oppose.99.181.144.107 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first hit in Google for "Climategate" links here, Climategate redirects here, and the first sentence in this article mentions "Climategate". The current title does no harm and it does have a more encyclopaedic tone than the tabloid-sounding "Climategate". It happened at the "Climatic Research Unit", it involved "emails", and it was a "controversy"; so well done WP for being neutral and informative. GFHandel &#9836; 06:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No title does any harm, so that's a moot assessment. Yes, arguably, "the current title has a more encyclopaedic tone than the tabloid-sounding 'Climategate'".  But is "encyclopaedic tone" one of the criteria we're supposed to consider when deciding titles?  I think not.  William Jefferson Clinton has a more encyclopedic tone than Bill Clinton, but we still use the latter.  So how do we draw the line?  Do we really want to be in the business of arguing about magnitude of encyclopedic tone?  Should we be in that business?  No, our standard for deciding titles is not a measure of how "encyclopedic" titles sound to us, but what is used in reliable sources.  There might be a high correlation there because the names that sources most commonly use tend to be the encyclopedic sounding ones, but that doesn't mean that encyclopedic tone is the measure we use.  I'm sorry, but this seems to be more of a JDLI rationalization than a policy or consensus-based argument.  I presume the closing admin will discount it accordingly.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. B2C's interpretation of policy is mistaken, IMHO. Whilst it is being argued that the proposed title is more widely known, it is not as neutral and screams "scandal". It is neither more natural nor more precise, as it implies tabloid journalism and that there are no other controversies involving climate. WP is not a tabloid newspaper, and ~-gate suffixes ought to be used extremely sparingly (except in the instance where the term originated). A parallel, 'the Tiananmen Massacre', as it's probably more widely known, is located at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It "screams 'scandal'"? It implies tabloid journalism? Are these part of a neutral evaluation? Reliable sources, not tabloids, use the term, more than any other, to refer to this topic.  To be truly neutral, we need to trust their judgments over our own.  --Born2cycle (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice that B2C has retorted almost every single comment by editors opposing this move request, and was wondering if he could stop the filibustering and let the discussion run its course without further disruption? (Hint: B2C isn't the only person with a valid opinion here). -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I came here from the policy talk page. if I were the closing admin I would discount all the oppose arguments put forward to date as they are not based on Wikiepdia Article titles policy. Instead some seem to be based on personal opinions of what should be the correct name, and others with suggestions about policy which I do not think are covered by Wilipedia AT policy and its guidelines. I hope that the closing administrator will base their close on the AT policy and its guidelines, look at the sources used in the article, and make a survey of other reliable sources and base their close on the sources and opinion based on reliable sources and policy.
 * "current title was product of hard-fought consensus." Consensus can change besides it is not clear that the previous limited consensus was an informed consensus based on the naming policies and guidelines.
 * "requested move, as proposed title is non-neutral and implies scandal where pretty much none as been shown to exist by subsequent inquiries. It's also debatable under WP:COMMONNAME whether Climategate vs "Climategate" or so-called "climategate" is the most common usage." No Argument against the move based on polices and guidelines, Climategate specifically as the first letter issues is bypassed by the name being the first word on the page and so at the start of a sentence.
 * "Apart from the grandaddy of them all, we avoid naming articles after the very old and very tired '-gate' neologism... WP:LABEL". is suggested but that is from a guideline for content and is a recently recent addition to that guideline. When gate was discussed on the talk page of WP:AT it was generally accepted that we should follow the usage in reliable sources, as we do for other article titles.
 * "it's just cruel to that poor dead horse". That or the following justification is not part of WP:AT policy. Just because other pages are named in ways that breach policy is not a reason for this one to do so. One could argue "Consistency" but when I have raised this precise argument on the talk page of the policy it has been suggested by those who support "Consistency" that it should not be read to contradict reliable sources.
 * "The issue with the name 'climategate' isn't simply that it's non-neutral. More importantly, it's a smear." So is the Peterloo Massacre but it is the common name for the event. "We would never, ever, use 'racist' to disambiguate an article about Sherrod, no matter how many rightwing bloggers used the term because" they are not reliable sources. We do not for the other reasons listed which are not part of the WP:AT policy or its guidelines. For example many of the English people found guilty of regicide are disambiguated under the term regicide.
 * " ... Our policies and guidelines are extremely contradictory and only make sense as a basis on which good-faith editors with common sense and a genuine desire to build a free and better alternative to Britannica can come to consensus." Then it will be very easy to show where in this case the naming policy throws up contradictions. why not list them in the oppose statement?
 * (c) There are clear policies against the use of such a title in cases like this:... and that would fail WP:BLP among other things in this case".AFAICT If "...gate" is the common name WP:AT policy that covers the title of articles does not seem to have a prohibition on its use. How does it fail BLP, this is not a biography on a living person. The contents may fail BLP but this is about the naming of the article not its content.
 * "already too much time wasted re-opening this contentious topic". Consensus can change
 * "The current title does no harm and it does have a more encyclopaedic tone than the tabloid-sounding 'Climategate'" A reliable source for that opinion and an argument based on policy please.
 * "B2C's interpretation of policy is mistaken, IMHO. Whilst it is being argued that the proposed title is more widely known, it is not as neutral and screams 'scandal'". From WP:NPOV the example Boston Tea Party Boston Massacre is not neutral or precise but it is the common name and used as an example of neutral naming.
 * Why does Tiananmen Square massacre redirect to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Tiananmen Square massacre is clearly more common.  Why does virtually every use of an article title with the "-gate" suffix in its name on Wikipedia redirect to a more neutral and precise title?  And why would Wikipedia choose to name this article "Climategate" when we have plenty of good reliable sources that do not?   We know from the majority of reliable sources that 'skeptics of global warming, who have long considered climate change a fraud, refer to the incident as "Climategate". We don't take sides. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See also 'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis, Environmental Values, Volume 19, Number 4, November 2010, pp. 419-442(24) DOI: 10.3197/096327110X531543 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless, we see that PBS has decided to throw out WP:NPOV altogether in favor of his own interpretation of polcy. Is PBS actually asking us to name an article after the fringe beliefs of a vocal, anti-science minority whose ridiculous allegations have been refuted by six investigations?  NPOV is clear on this point:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. As multiple sources clearly point out, the term "climategate" a term coined by global warming skeptics to describe their conspiracy theory.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The assertion that scientists engaged in a conspiracy is not just seriously contested, it has now been refuted by multiple investigations.
 * Prefer non-judgmental language. And this is exactly what we have done with the title.
 * Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Would it be accurate to name this article after a discredited conspiracy theory promoted by a vocal minority?
 * It's become obvious that PBS and others wish to completely override NPOV. That can't be allowed to happen. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Viriditas why the personal attack? I stated that informed opinions should be based on relevant policy and and guidelines. I do not want to "completely override NPOV" I want due weight to be given to the section in NPOV specifically about naming articles. -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

PBS, to reply your points - some of which were redundant (you repeated stuff about WP:CCC many times) and some of which were strawman (no one raised them), from an opposing perspective. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your points and are making strawmen of my own (please note if I do so I can strike-through)
 * Yes, consensus can change, but consensus can also stay the same. Just because you and other editors want to change consensus, does it mean it must change. Can and Must are very different words. So, expressing support for an existing consensus is not an invalid perspective, as you seem to argue, and should never be ignored in an RM discussion - in fact, in a RM discussion, most of the keep are always going to be about supporting the existing consensus, as the definition of consensus is any stable state of an article.
 * 1) By focusing on WP:AT and sections of that policy, you are forgetting that ALL policy in wikipedia is subject to the five pillars. One of these pillars is WP:NPOV. NPOV as policy is more important, more over-riding, and more relevant than any other policy. Period. Open a global RFC, open a Village Pump discussion, ask ANY un-involved editor, and to a person they will say Neutrality over Commonality. Consensus can change over this undisputed fact, but it hasn't and this is not the place to change it. Neutrality cannot be thrown out of the door simply because the media decided to throw it out the door, or because partisan books flood the bestseller pulp lists. Neutrality is also pretty easy to spot - if it offends a significant amount of editors, it is not neutral. That is unquestionably the case with "climategate", it violates, no, it rapes NPOV. No amount of WP:AT wikilawyering can hide that fact. Yes, there is value in commonality, but that is solved by the redirect, and mention in the lede. No one is arguing the term should be erased forever and remain un-findable. The argument is that WIkipedia shouldn't appear to endorse the non-neutral POV of the term "climategate" by using it as an article title.
 * 2) Peterloo Massacre - Oh how I love it when WP:OTHERSTUFF gets dusted off. Well, lets get into a WP:OTHERSTUFF measuring contest. You bring me a nearly 200 year old article on an essentially non-controversial naming, of an event most editors have no personal experience or POV on, and while not obscure, it has not been mentioned in the news media and in popular bestselling book in many decades, if not in a century or two, and whose only connection to this one is that it is in the same country. I whip out September 11 attacks, a hugely controversial article, contemporary, on which the majority of editors were alive when it happened, and hence have a POV on that in many cases is highly emotional. The WP:WTA vs WP:AT battle is eternal, and am afraid will last until I last edit wikipedia, but consensus has consistently come out in favor of not including the most common name "September 11 terrorist attacks" vs the less common, but way more neutral September 11 attacks. And the reason has been WP:LABEL every single time, because it is a concentration and explanation of NPOV. However, while gathering precedent (ie seeing the result of other relevant RM discussions or AfDs etc) is entirely legitimate exercise, in general we frown upon WP:OTHERSTUFF, simply because the differences between the cases are usually much deeper than just the title.
 * 3) This brings me to the next point. All of the examples you bring up are for long-past historical events whose name has been etched in history books. This article deals with a contemporary event still in political and media contention. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Notability (events} clearly tell us to take a long-view. This means that perhaps, at some point in the future, the article might be named "Climategate", because historians in the future find it a good common shorthand. Maybe not. We do not know. That is why we do not eliminate all trace of the term. However, it is clearly - today - used as a sensationalistic term, no serious scholar refers to it by this term, and in fact, no serious historical work on the topic has been published (as is the case with the two examples you provide). You are hitting a limitation of controversial news articles in wikipedia, which is that unless the common name is non-controversial and neutral, it will be subject to change. And neutrality in this case means acceptable to both sides. No amount of policy citing changes this stark reality.

I hope I have addressed all your points. --Cerejota (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not repeat anything. Instead I listed the Oppose opinions with comments about why I did not think that they did not give pertinent reasons for opposing the move. On you first point one we agree (As B2C says above it is "more than 6 months since the last request" and that is traditionally the point when a move can be re-requested a different nominee). On you point two see WP:NPOV. I am not justifying a move or no move I am suggesting that the debate revolve around policies and guidelines. For example you that in point three, although I disagree that words to avoid covers "Article titles" and should only be used as a possible from of guidance for descriptive names (although in general I do not think that the MOS guidelines should be used for article titling ), that is not the point I was making above. I was making the point that the debate should be based around the policy and guidelines and the use of sources that the policy and guidelines encourages. Your point four is off track. The issue is no longer news its now fish and chip paper. You write "And neutrality in this case means acceptable to both sides. No amount of policy citing changes this stark reality." What both sides? I think that is your opinion are straying from policy and guidelines when you make that statement. What NPOV policy say is "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." As such if I were the closing administrator I would give far more weight to the NPOV wording than you own personal opinion. -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent clarification. I am afraid it is not enough to make me reverse a keep, but it is enough to gain insight into your concerns. Let me see if I can refine based on your answers. I will not address some of your replies, because we will clearly have to agree to disagree - for example, this is still news, even if not front page news, because the consequences have still not been fully fleshed out, notably the perpetrators of the hacking crime have not been bought to justice. We obviously have a cognitive dissonance in how we perceive this event in concrete life. So I will address the narrower topic of Wikipedia policy and guidelines - and I might be blunt but the intention is not to offend, but to make a point clear.


 * You are raising the point that WP:NPOV requires the name be "Climategate". Many question this for many reasons. I question it more fundamentally: it doesn't require we do it, it allows us to do it - the "may be" clause. You are turning the "may be" in the policy, into a "must be". That is not policy, that is opinion. I offer that the case of "Climategate" is so far - specially as this case fades from the news - so skewed towards one POV that the "balance" we are invited to make between "neutral terms" and "clarity", in this case tilts significantly towards "neutral terms". I would agree that this is an interpretation of policy, but only in the way your views are an interpretation of policy.
 * Clearly we both agree WP:NPOV is policy, and furthermore, it is Important Policy thats Kicks Nearly All Other Policies' Ass.


 * We disagree on which side of the balance the policy calls us to make to come out. In my case, I think I have explained that pretty substantially already, but to summarize once again:
 * The need for neutrality via neutral terms outweighs the need for clarity via a common names.


 * You seem to have the opposing view, that clarity via a common names outweighs the need for neutrality via neutral terms. Fair enough, but looking back, I do not recall you making an argument around this point. You cite the fact that we can do it as per policy, but you do gives us a reasoning to tip the balance other than "this is a common name". It is a common name, no one I think in their right mind can question this fact. But that is not enough for inclusion: You must also convince us via argument, not policy, that using a non-neutral POV common name (which policy allows, but doesn't require) is worth pushing aside NPOV (which policy allows in the case of titles, but doesn't require).


 * In essence, you interpret policy as a narrow prescription on how to proceed, while it is actually setting specific boundaries for the development of consensus. Which is what we are doing, and why so many people want to keep the current title.


 * Lastly, I remind you that WP:DEADLINE/WP:CONSENSUS. Maybe when this term becomes less charged ideologically, we can change the title. But for now, I would rather make this article a good one than a perfect one.--Cerejota (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is why WP:WTA needs to be policy, because editors seem to think that NPOV doesn't apply to them. X-gate is non-neutral in almost any sense except the original Watergate, and that is because the event actually happened in a place named Watergate. Otherwise, X-gate is just some catchy media slang that almost always is non-neutral, and used by partisans of one side or the other. However, in this particular case, this issue is exacerbated by the fact that unlike with many X-gate, the particular one "Climategate" is almost exclusive used by partisan sources, and when used in neutral contexts it is usually used as reporting some partisan using it. For a completely neutral, non-partisan view on the use of the term (also on other details, but thats not what we are discussing here) see Factcheck.org's article on the topic. In fact, a google news search for the term returns mostly partisan blogs, not RS, and the first actual print magazine link I got was from the pro-climate change partisan magazine Mother Jones, criticizing and "exposing" the use of the term as a partisan one. The first true RS hit I got was from July 7 2010, in the Christian Science Monitor Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged. So its been over a year at least since a news RS has used the term, and they did in scare quotes. On books, all you see is partisan sources for one side or the other. When the event first transpired, the term was more common, but we are not journalists, we are editors of an NPOV encyclopedia. Also, WP:RECENT seems to suggest the correct name is the current one, as it is not only neutral, but timeless and educational, taking a long view rather than falling for the latest in media buzzwords.
 * It is true the term should be mentioned in the article, and it should redirect here, but we have to be careful with WP:UNDUE preference being given to one side of the controversy in the all important article title. People first reading this article will have a different impression of were we stand if its titled as it's now (NPOV title) than as Climategate (Partisan POV title). --Cerejota (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't WP:NPOV cover this issue if so who are the editors who "seem to think that NPOV doesn't apply to them"? -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This request is not entirely without merit - climategate gets a lot of references. However, there is too much quality RS asserting the name is partisan, and too much RS using climategate in scarequotes to indicate the term is problematic. I agree with Cerejota's view that POV titles really need to take much longer to get established in RS before we can comfortably invoke POVTITLE. It is better that Wikipedia withholds judgement on the use of a POV term if it's only emerged from recent events. NPOV is too important for us to make an early call on something this controversial. In the mean time, the redirect maintains usability. We also need to be wary of buzzwords surrounding media coverage of global warming, given the RS documented existence of various astroturf organisations funded by particular corporate interests dedicated to altering public perceptions of climate science (see Climate change denialism for sources on this) - which include the deliberate emphasis of certain key phrases. As for Phillip Baird Shearer's arguments: I am entirely unaware of any controversy surrounding Boston Tea Party, and so, as far as I can see, is the talkpage archive of that article. If that's an example of an acceptable POV title, then climategate doesn't compare at all. (I'm a citizen of the losing side, and I've never heard the Boston Tea Party called different). It should be noted that Born2cycle's interpretations of WP:Article titles are disputed on that policy's own talkpage; his authority is largely his own. His view appears to be - more or less - that google hits don't simply carry a large weight, they actually define what the neutral point of view is. But this is not how we title articles. Usage is only one - albeit important - criterion. NPOV is based on fairness, proportionality and - as much as possible - freedom from bias. I think invoking a descriptive title as we currently do is the best way of preserving NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My my mistake I meant "Boston Massacre" and have altered the above. I would point you to WP:NPOV where it is one of the examples given. You comments on B2C are unwarrented as far as I can tell he is not stating number of Google hits as a criteria but the usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not unwarranted. B2C has pretty much been using google hits in other places recently where he's putting forward this argument about most common name. All RS carry the same weight in terms of usage as far as he is concerned - a local paper counts for as much as a broadsheet national, and he's using google news to determine the numbers. As for the Boston Massacre, is there much (or any) contemporary RS actually disparaging that as a biased title and arguing against its use? There certainly is for "climategate".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Links please this claim please: 1) "B2C has pretty much been using google hits in other places recently [ rather than usage in reliable sources]", As far as "All RS carry the same weight in terms of usage as far as he is concerned"... yes, I think with respect to looking at RS to determine common usage, there is no reasonable way to discern among them.  What does that have to do with supporting the claim that I've been using google hits rather than looking at usage in RS?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your (1) is not what I said - it's about how you define RS usage and your position that aggregate usage is the final word on neutrality. The point about rating all RS the same is the theory; the practice is, for example, that you use google to search websites it classifies as "news" to establish usage amongst media RSs. On the article titles talkpage page you dispute that we need anything "more nuanced" than counting sources, and with regard to "pro-life"'s neutrality, on your talkpage you consider it irrelevant that many major media organisations explicitly reject the term as non-neutral - instead favouring hit counts on google news to determine their policies. The problem is that google does not distinguish between the organisation's own use, and the appearance of the phrase in verbatim reports and organisation names, let alone scare quotes. Furthermore, what google calls news is a broader definition than what we would call RS in general, let alone RS for particular contexts. In this particular instance, there is RS analysis of who actually uses "climategate" as a regular standard term, which raises questions about one-sided use; another element that aggregate use determined by counts cannot handle. (And is it counts of articles, or counts of media organisations, or counts of readers?) Of course, aggregate usage is very important in determining titles, but, in the sense that we as editors can establish it, it is not the only determinant. Our google hit counts (with whatever RS-focussed parameters) are basically OR, and as such are only a guide to decision making, not a super-RS (OR, like NPOV is core - it applies everywhere). That is why we have POVTITLE, which states a much higher usage threshhold for acceptance of possibly non-neutral titles than for commonname in general. This still isn't perfect, but it's important to remember that we don't define neutrality through policy, we try to ascertain it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Protest Support Calling the article "Climategate," on its own does not inherently violate NPOV, it's just a convenient label for the affair. It's also way simpler than convoluted title Wikipedia has chosen.The only reason it's become such a political football is that partisans of one side (the side I happen to agree with!) has decided that the title implies that the accusations have merit. If supporters of legal abortion insist that their opponents aren't really "pro-life" (and vice versa for "pro-choice") should we scrub all those terms from Wikipedia? (oh wait, I think that's actually happening). It just doesn't do wonders for the pro-science side of things when they insist that articles on certain hot-button issues match all their talking points, instead of just trusting the facts to speak for themselves. 71.58.222.181 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a tough call and every article has to be judged on its own merits. I wholeheartedly support the underlying principle of WP:POVTITLE. But there are bound to be gray areas. I think those RSs that are calling this “Climategate” are doing so largely because it’s popular at the moment to give a catchy title that quickly conveys the nature of the brouhaha; it’s a pop-culture thing with schtick. Accordingly, I don’t think “Climategate” will prove to have ‘legs’ in historical retrospect. Because of its pop-culture, temporary nature, such a title would would suffer from undo informality and be insufficiently encyclopedic for Wikipedia to adopt it. There is no perfectly obvious solution (which is why we are having this debate). But I think the current title is the best solution, the first sentence of the lede (The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (commonly known as "Climategate") began…) is best, and redirecting from a search on “Climategate” is also best. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I pointed in this direction with my comment on WP:RECENT, and giving it some thought and seeing your comment makes me think more about this. So WP:POVTITLE doesn't really apply here because of the WP:RECENT/WP:NOTNEWS issues, and furthermore, "Climategate" own "commoness" can be questioned if faced with terms like "University of East Anglia climate emails hacking scandal" or other also common, yet not neutral, denominators. Most "rename" arguments base themselves on WP:COMMON, but we must ask ourselves, WP:COMMON how? Most partisan sources on the side of the the theory of global warming either do not use the term or if they do they use scare quotes or "so-called climategate" and proceed to give a critique. We even have seen articles, that while granting the commonality, argue it is an artificial construct of the media. On the other hand, in partisan sources that are against the theory of global warming, or are skeptics, the term has near universal usage, and it is never critiqued or questioned - and the newspeak is prevalent and taken at face-value. So we are WP:NOTNEWS.--Cerejota (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak, qualified OPPOSE I prefer the title, "Climategate," as straightforward and most generally recognizable. With three qualifications, I could also support the odd, convoluted title since it just isn't worth fighting over. The three, which are presently met, are: 1. A redirect from "Climategate." 2. Notice in the first sentence that the event is also known as (or commonly known as or what have you) "Climategate." 3. An "also known as 'Climategate'" in the sidebar.
 * This does not support the indignant insistence that we cannot, must not, use the term that is most widely used because it started out as a pejorative. The term is ubiquitous, not iniquitous. I reject the disingenuous claim above that "Secondary sources covering the release of this report, a report which vindicated the scientists, did not use the term "climategate" at all." Not in those cherry-picked articles, no, but the claim implies they never did. This is not true; every single one of those newspapers has used the term "Climategate," sometimes in scare quotes and sometimes not. This sample is not exhaustive: Sydney Herald. NZ Herald. The Australian. The Telegraph. And then the telly--CBS and BBC. (And, yes, the claim was that BBC did not say "Climategate" till after the investigation began, so that is probably true.) Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.